Earth Year
Ben Goodridge
The joke, of course, goes that Maine has two seasons--winter and the Fourth
of July. We generally have to wait a little bit longer for the snow to
disappear from the ground up here, and it's generally the middle of May
before our front lawns are no longer federally-protected wetlands.
Nevertheless, the long hibernation is over.
I'm celebrating the weekend of Earth Day by climbing Pleasant Mountain
again. It's been a while and the 2,107 foot mountain will probably be a pile
of mud on April 22, but I find hiking very liberating. I'm closest to the
wolf within when I'm feeling relaxed and liberated, and I generally feel
relaxed and liberated when I'm meeting some kind of challenge. I was
privileged to get a little more exercise this winter than during some more
sedentary winters, after realizing that it was getting just a little bit
harder to heave my ponderous bulk over the peaks and rills of Western Maine
than the year before. Been thinking of taking up martial arts...
--
All hail the returning Smash! Hi there, Smash. I hope you don't mind if I
ask which Smash you are, because I've known a couple. I'm usually to be
found loafing around a chat room when I'm not vigorously dedicated to
writing my latest novel (RMA this month, wish me luck) and if you want to
pop in and say a hallo I can offer you a couple of promising addresses.
--
I set the alarm clock for a half past April. Now it's going off. I want to
give the snooze alarm a whack and roll over and go back to oblivion, but I
oughtta know better than that.
For one thing, I gotta go to the bathroom.
--
Consider the noble horse. The baby horse is born and lives in a single stall
in a stable. Then one day he trots out of the stable and into the barn.
Then, a little older, he discovers the barn door open and steps into the
pasture.
Then, a little older, he discovers the pasture gates open and trots into the
fields.
Each time he had believed that his previous home was his whole world. Each
time he realized that the doors to a greater world just beyond it hadn't
merely been opened, but had been open all along and he just needed the tools
to notice it. Instead, homes within homes, realms within realms, stacked
like Russian dolls or a small model of the Universe. The grown horse is at
his strongest when there are hundreds of square miles of obedient fields to
run in.
It's happened before and it's gonna happen again, pretty soon. Sometimes I
can feel it tugging from inside. Do it. Do it do it do it. Leave this
cage--if not for absolute freedom then at least for a bigger cage where you
can stretch out a bit.
--
Which is part of the joy of it, I suppose. No matter how old I get there's
always going to be something new, and I'm going to get that sense of wonder
and discovery that was a daily fact of life in my very junior years.
--
One of the exercises I wanted to try sometime this summer was inspired by
the blackouts all over the West Coast. I thought it might be an interesting
break in routine to go for thirty days without electricity. Just throw the
switch and darken the house.
We forget in this technological age that electricity is, essentially, a
luxury, and that it's blurred the line between luxury and necessity enough
to give us our current society of creative consumption. We not only truly
believe we need all the gizmoes and gadgets we've caged ourself in, we truly
believe we need better ones than we have. It'd be nice to take thirty days
off from that. Not that it wouldn't take some adaptation, and one must admit
that bragging rights in re: "Hey, I just went a whole month without
electricity in my apartment!" are dubious at best, but this is merely an
exercise, not a bet or a test or a punishment or an Adventure in Amish
Living, just an exercise in adaptibility.
You are now welcome to answer however you please, but most answers I've
received on this proposal are one of two minds: a) Well, it's an interesting
exercise, and b) when did you go insane, by the way?
--
Now, when I'm at my most creative and the world is coming alive around me,
would be the perfect time to read the Tao te Ching, Allan Ginsburg's "Howl",
the Nojar Rajasthan stories, the Rum Diaries, Finder, the complete T.S.
Eliot, The Jungle Books, De Oratorio, Apologia, and the Songlines. If I can
squeeze in Cold Mountain and the Li Po translations, I'll do it. Wheel in
the Upanishads and the Works and Days. It's past time to put this energy to
use.
Give me a stream to jump in and out of and dig my old buckskin loincloth out
of mothballs. Show me a well-marked trail I can chase, wearing little beyond
a breech clout and a pair of knee-high mocs. Somewhere out there is just the
thing to attract the undivided attention of the wolf in me, under some
rampant waterfall or atop some windswept mountain.
Come with me if you like. I know of a tiny cabin in the forest, near
Bridgton, where we can meet and sing songs and howl at the moon and probably
scare the bejeezus out of the local yokels were there any close enough to
hear.
Someone's opened the gate. It's time to run for your life.
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
www.animal-man.com
Kamatu
"Ben Goodridge" <bgoo...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mkeB6.7505$9%.1226324@newsr1.maine.rr.com...
> Well, isn't this nice.
>
As long as we keep the nets up, it shouldn't be a problem.
> The joke, of course, goes that Maine has two seasons--winter and the
Fourth
> of July. We generally have to wait a little bit longer for the snow to
> disappear from the ground up here, and it's generally the middle of May
> before our front lawns are no longer federally-protected wetlands.
> Nevertheless, the long hibernation is over.
>
yeah, we had spring here in Jersey also.
> I'm celebrating the weekend of Earth Day by climbing Pleasant Mountain
> again. It's been a while and the 2,107 foot mountain will probably be a
pile
> of mud on April 22, but I find hiking very liberating. I'm closest to the
> wolf within when I'm feeling relaxed and liberated, and I generally feel
> relaxed and liberated when I'm meeting some kind of challenge. I was
> privileged to get a little more exercise this winter than during some more
> sedentary winters, after realizing that it was getting just a little bit
> harder to heave my ponderous bulk over the peaks and rills of Western
Maine
> than the year before. Been thinking of taking up martial arts...
> --
> All hail the returning Smash! Hi there, Smash. I hope you don't mind if I
> ask which Smash you are, because I've known a couple.
He's the one who pops in every 3 months and whines about the condition of
the newsgroup.
> I'm usually to be
> found loafing around a chat room when I'm not vigorously dedicated to
> writing my latest novel (RMA this month, wish me luck) and if you want to
> pop in and say a hallo I can offer you a couple of promising addresses.
Yeah, then he pops in here when he sees some other seagull has migrated in
and posts something like this.
So, everyone's a writer these days.
Guess they expanded the definition to include anyone who could spell.
> --
> I set the alarm clock for a half past April. Now it's going off. I want to
> give the snooze alarm a whack and roll over and go back to oblivion, but I
> oughtta know better than that.
>
> For one thing, I gotta go to the bathroom.
Sharing violation.
> --
> Consider the noble horse. The baby horse is born and lives in a single
stall
> in a stable. Then one day he trots out of the stable and into the barn.
>
I've seen more than a few born out in the pasture.
> Then, a little older, he discovers the barn door open and steps into the
> pasture.
>
I've seen more than a few who lived every moment in the pasture.
> Then, a little older, he discovers the pasture gates open and trots into
the
> fields.
>
Never to be seen or heard from again.
We could use a luxury like that around here.
> Each time he had believed that his previous home was his whole world. Each
> time he realized that the doors to a greater world just beyond it hadn't
> merely been opened, but had been open all along and he just needed the
tools
> to notice it.
Maye he just wasn't paying attention.
> Instead, homes within homes, realms within realms, stacked
> like Russian dolls or a small model of the Universe. The grown horse is at
> his strongest when there are hundreds of square miles of obedient fields
to
> run in.
>
Or rows to hoe.
> It's happened before and it's gonna happen again, pretty soon. Sometimes I
> can feel it tugging from inside. Do it. Do it do it do it. Leave this
> cage--if not for absolute freedom then at least for a bigger cage where
you
> can stretch out a bit.
> --
> Which is part of the joy of it, I suppose. No matter how old I get there's
> always going to be something new, and I'm going to get that sense of
wonder
> and discovery that was a daily fact of life in my very junior years.
> --
> One of the exercises I wanted to try sometime this summer was inspired by
> the blackouts all over the West Coast. I thought it might be an
interesting
> break in routine to go for thirty days without electricity. Just throw the
> switch and darken the house.
>
That will never work, because you know the power is just a switch throw
away.
Try quitting your job and not paying your bill. Then turning it back on
won't be so convenient.
You'll learn more.
> We forget in this technological age that electricity is, essentially, a
> luxury, and that it's blurred the line between luxury and necessity enough
> to give us our current society of creative consumption. We not only truly
> believe we need all the gizmoes and gadgets we've caged ourself in, we
truly
> believe we need better ones than we have. It'd be nice to take thirty days
> off from that. Not that it wouldn't take some adaptation, and one must
admit
> that bragging rights in re: "Hey, I just went a whole month without
> electricity in my apartment!" are dubious at best, but this is merely an
> exercise, not a bet or a test or a punishment or an Adventure in Amish
> Living, just an exercise in adaptibility.
>
Big deal, I went 6 months in a Waikiki apartment without electricity.
Little candles all over the place and take out food every night.
What you see as an exercise in adaptability, we white trash call life.
Please do.
Thanks for stopping in this quarter.
Look forward to your next fly-by.
barbara turner/ moonwolf
>The grown horse is at his strongest when
> there are hundreds of square miles of
> obedient fields to run in.
>It's happened before and it's gonna
> happen again, pretty soon. Sometimes I
> can feel it tugging from inside. Do it. Do
> it do it do it. Leave this cage--if not for
> absolute freedom then at least for a
> bigger cage where you can stretch out a
> bit.
And what about those of us who physically cannot run? Either due to
lack of mobility, or lack of opportunity, for some are stuck in cities
without access to the woods or hills? I just want to put my .02 in, to
reply to the many posts I read gushing about how one cannot truly
connect to one's wereness without being in the quasi-wilderness (sorry
Ben, you just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time):).
I can walk across a small room and that is it - I am dependent upon an
electric scooter or at least a walker to go farther than that. I am
just 46, and never expected to have such difficulties at this age. Try
taking a walker down a wooded trail...:( But I am not saying this to
garner any pity, but to make a point. In a way, this situation has
enriched my experience of being were; I have had to learn to rely upon
feeling lupine in a sort of "thought-body" (I had to make up a term,
sorry) that is not connected tightly to my physical body most of the
time. I have fields to run, though no one can see them. Physical
ability does not make a were. One makes one's own freedom.
Moonwolf
************************************
"Paranoia is the last refuge of the insignificant." - Anonymous.
"There is nothing that makes us feel so good as the idea that someone
else is an evildoer."- Robert Lynd "Expecting the world to
treat you fairly because you are a good person is a little like
expecting the bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian."-
Dennis Wholey
Bryan Manternach
> --
> All hail the returning Smash! Hi there, Smash. I hope you don't mind if I
> ask which Smash you are, because I've known a couple.
There wre about 2 dozen people using "smash" as a screen name thse days.
I'm the one attached to sm...@lycanthrope.net.
> Come with me if you like. I know of a tiny cabin in the forest, near
> Bridgton, where we can meet and sing songs and howl at the moon and probably
> scare the bejeezus out of the local yokels were there any close enough to
> hear.
Got a trail map? I'll wanna ride my dirt bike up there.
Spending earth day on the trails, doing maintenance... See ya later!
SMASH
Bryan Manternach
> > All hail the returning Smash! Hi there, Smash. I hope you don't mind if I
> > ask which Smash you are, because I've known a couple.
>
> He's the one who pops in every 3 months and whines about the condition of
> the newsgroup.
No, every 6 months. If it was 3 months, Iwouldn't qualify as a seagull.
SMASH
Ben Goodridge
> There wre about 2 dozen people using "smash" as a screen name thse days.
> I'm the one attached to sm...@lycanthrope.net.
Oh right right right! Great website by the way. Wonderful werewolf costumes.
I always wanted one of those. Someday, when I'm independently wealthy, or at
least have paid off my tuition...
> Got a trail map? I'll wanna ride my dirt bike up there.
>
> Spending earth day on the trails, doing maintenance... See ya later!
I don't know how easy it'll be for you to get a dirt bike up the side of
Pleasant Mountain, but I'm hip to any experience if you don't mind carrying
it more than riding it. I'll settle for a backpack full of beef jerky and a
full canteen of mountain water. My friend Red will generally carry a walking
stick with him; I'm sure he has his reasons, but for me a walking stick has
always been just one more thing to lug.A trail map isn't out of the
question...I've cultivated a spiritual experience at nearly every peak in
Maine, taller tha 850 feet, south of Augusta. For mountain biking, you want
something along the lines of Agamenticus. If you want to scale some rock,
Cutler is for you. For plain old bareknuckles day-hiking, Sabattus or
Streaked Mountain are the places to be.
I want to finish a photo essay called "Altitudes" but my skills as a
photographer are highly questionable...
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
www.animal-man.com
Ben Goodridge
> lack of mobility, or lack of opportunity, for some are stuck in cities
> without access to the woods or hills? I just want to put my .02 in, to
> reply to the many posts I read gushing about how one cannot truly
> connect to one's wereness without being in the quasi-wilderness (sorry
> Ben, you just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time):).
> I can walk across a small room and that is it - I am dependent upon an
> electric scooter or at least a walker to go farther than that. I am
> just 46, and never expected to have such difficulties at this age. Try
> taking a walker down a wooded trail...:( But I am not saying this to
> garner any pity, but to make a point. In a way, this situation has
> enriched my experience of being were; I have had to learn to rely upon
> feeling lupine in a sort of "thought-body" (I had to make up a term,
> sorry) that is not connected tightly to my physical body most of the
> time. I have fields to run, though no one can see them. Physical
> ability does not make a were. One makes one's own freedom.
Actually, some ground has been broken in this area, and I can think of at
least three sanctuaries in Maine with access. The ADA has been interpreted
in Maine so that all state and national parks are required to blaze some
trails that are level and graded. Mt. Washington in New Hampshire has both
its auto-road tours and its cog rail. Disabled-access inroads into the
wilderness are growing increasingly popular. Baxter State Park, in fact, has
a site dedicated to it, with the best views of O-J-I and Katahdin in the
entire state.
That aside, I don't believe that one must make an Indiana Jones of oneself
to have a relevant and exciting were-experience. I'm poorly equipped to
understand the challenges someone in a wheelchair has to face, though I've
written a number of nastygrams to the news outlets expressing rage that the
sidewalks in Portland are so poorly cut. A friend of mine, Corey Gilmore,
puts way more miles on his wheelchair than should be necessary, just looking
for a place where the concrete doesn't plummet a foot into the gutter.
As you say, one makes one's own freedom, and hiking has worked wonders for
me. As effective as it's been, running all over the state chasing one
mountain after another (it's easy to chase a mountain; they don't move too
fast), surely there are other paths to enlightenment that I miss because
I've chosen this one. Personal preference also plays a role.
Besides, that horse thing was just an illustration. Other writers may be
able to explain things whole cloth; I've always found I've had to fall back
on illustration and analogy to get a point across.
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
www.animal-man.com
Bryan Manternach
> Bryan Manternach <
> > There wre about 2 dozen people using "smash" as a screen name thse days.
> > I'm the one attached to sm...@lycanthrope.net.
>
> Oh right right right! Great website by the way.
Personally, I think the site is a piece of shit, but thanks for the
complements anyhow. The purpose of the site is to provide
myself witha place to receive w-mail, and post my resume online.
Everything else, jsut sort of happened on it's own.
The domain name "lycanthrope.net" is no longer an indicator
of the scope of the activity on that server, so I may be changing
domain names soon, and "subhosting" lycanthrope.net as a
subdomain, until it is but jsut a legacy name/placeholder to
preserve old links,and catch e-mail. Current users, domains,
and data will be transitioned over to the new, more genericly
named domain name.
> Wonderful werewolf costumes.
> I always wanted one of those. Someday, when I'm independently wealthy, or at
> least have paid off my tuition...
Paying off the tuition was the biggest step for me. Ym4e experience
led me to the observation that you either have all of the time,a nd none
of the money for a costume like that, or all of the money and
none of the time. I spent years trying to get the materials together,
and build one that I was happy with,a nd in the end, I ended up
sending my castings to Wolf Studios to have a suit built, cause
my work schedule began to restrict my free-time.
> I don't know how easy it'll be for you to get a dirt bike up the side of
> Pleasant Mountain, but I'm hip to any experience if you don't mind carrying
> it more than riding it.
It's amazing where a trials bike can go.
I tried racing, but I have more fun taking a little bike up steep, and
very technical tails. Gets tot he top a lot faster then hiking, and
I still took 4 inches off my waist in 3 months of riding last summer.
Anyone who says dirt biking is a lazy-man's mountain biking
has never tried it!
Bryan Manternach
> Actually, some ground has been broken in this area, and I can think of at
> least three sanctuaries in Maine with access. The ADA has been interpreted
> in Maine so that all state and national parks are required to blaze some
> trails that are level and graded. Mt. Washington in New Hampshire has both
> its auto-road tours and its cog rail. Disabled-access inroads into the
> wilderness are growing increasingly popular. Baxter State Park, in fact, has
> a site dedicated to it, with the best views of O-J-I and Katahdin in the
> entire state.
Out her ein the west, Sierra CLub, DOW, and other green groups
have made significant progress in closing access to public parklands,
by lobbying for closure of roads, and the Clinton "Roadless
Initiative"... The result is that law abiding disabled, or handicapped
citizens who used to be able to ride ATV's off-road to remote
destinations are no longer allowed to, or will be prevented from doing
so in the not so distant future.
There is no science in enviornmentalism these days. It's all
about inflating miniscule issues to make them seem to be
immense threats when we should be worried about conserving
electricity and gasoline instead of closing parklands.
> Besides, that horse thing was just an illustration. Other writers may be
> able to explain things whole cloth; I've always found I've had to fall back
> on illustration and analogy to get a point across.
For me, it's cross-country off-road riding. Unfortunately,
I won't be allowed to do that anymore because a bunch of
greenies in the big city seem to think they know what's
bvest for the enviornment way out here in the middle of the
mountains.
FIrst they put our loggers out of work, Then they let
our forests burn from lack of maintenance, then they
complain because homeowner's insurance goes up
because prices of materials goes up,a nd risk of fire
damage goes up. Then they figure that by keeping
everyone out of the forests, they'll prevent human-caused
fires from happening.
Pretty soon, those mountains will be closed to everything
but hikers,a nd even then they might not let you camp
overnight, or build a fire.
I envision a day when I get lost in the wilderness,
get rescused, and then get fined for building the
very campfire that saves my life.
Ben Goodridge
> Out her ein the west, Sierra CLub, DOW, and other green groups
> have made significant progress in closing access to public parklands,
> by lobbying for closure of roads, and the Clinton "Roadless
> Initiative"... The result is that law abiding disabled, or handicapped
> citizens who used to be able to ride ATV's off-road to remote
> destinations are no longer allowed to, or will be prevented from doing
> so in the not so distant future.
Well, maybe things are different here in the East. Maine is the only state
where one can see clearcutting from the Appalachian Trail, and it's
reasonably clear that the only thing saving some areas of forest is that
it's impossible to get to the wood. It seems to me that one should lobby the
Sierra Club et al. explaining that law-abiding disabled citizens SHOULD be
allowed to ride ATV's off road to remote destinations. Exceptions are made
all over the MSRA in deference to the ADA; most of the time these
enviro-lefties are pretty flexible.
> There is no science in enviornmentalism these days. It's all
> about inflating miniscule issues to make them seem to be
> immense threats when we should be worried about conserving
> electricity and gasoline instead of closing parklands.
Well, there ARE some global ecological initiatives going ignored by the
powers-that-be; the US has earned the ire of the world for refusing to be a
party to the Kyoto accord, George W. refuses to consider the most prominent
greenhouse gas as a "pollutant," and restrictions on arsenic and mercury
have been rolled back. From the look of things, it's only a matter of time
before the rules that piss you off so much are going to be revoked. Place a
bet as to whether that's before or after the Alaskan land reserves are
jackhammered for their oil?
So maybe these eco-lobbyists don't have the power they seem to. True, a lot
of ecological politics are inspired more by emotionalism than science. Here
in Maine we have sprawling forests which are valuable as a resource to both
sides of the issue--to us eco-nuts, it's a quality of life issue, to the
loggers et al, it's an economic issue. There is no way the Maine Audubon or
the Green Party will ever get the wherewithal in Augusta to overcome the
rampaging demagogues at the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine and their
uber-lunatic George Smith, and there's no way the eco-panic of the Sierra
Club can possibly be greater than the econo-panic of the Forest Products
Council.
I admit that sometimes the eco-panic can reach a rather fevered pitch, but I
find it hard to accept when I actually do go to the northern end of the
state and am confronted by miles and miles of rolling mountains, valleys,
rivers, and forest floodplains, all untouched by the hands of man. On the
other hand, Maine has gained a notoriety for using a resource until that
resource is strained to its absolute limit, leaving the government _no
choice_ but to step in.
Maine Yankee, a nuclear power plant, was run like a racehorse for twenty
five straight years, as every spare dollar was wrung from it. When bits
started coming off it because it had been run so hard for so long, and after
a couple of minor accidents, the NRC stepped in to shut it down. Wiscasset,
its hometown, promptly hit the ceiling and bounced, even though they knew
damn well that Maine Yankee wouldn't last forever and had plenty of time to
prepare economic contingencies. How dare the eeeeevil government step in to
close down this valuable economic resource.
The Gulf of Maine was fished to sterility (he said, using obvious
hyperbole). When certain kinds of fish populations were reduced to levels
that rang alarm bells all up and down the coast, the Atlantic Fisheries
Council tightened the limits on cod and flounder and banned the removal of
Atlantic salmon. Fishermen freaked loudly. One of them stood up at an AFC
meeting and denounced the head of the AFC as an "evil man." Fishing is a
rough enough way to make a living without the eeeevil government stepping in
to close down this valuable economic resource.
I could also include a wool mill in Orrington that is now a Superfund
site--because of the enormous levels of mercury in the ground, the river
itself--a navigable river--will have to be MOVED. Ever try to move a river?
They're moving the river. They also have to replace the dirt the mill sat
on. The actual, physical SOIL, to a depth of I-don't-know-how-many-meters,
has to be trucked off and crated up like toxic waste. The eeeevil government
stepped in again.
With the forests, we have a chance to avoid the mistakes of the developers,
fishermen, hunters, millworkers, and power generators. By establishing a
handful of MINOR regulations now, we can stretch our resources, maintain
self-renewal, and avoid economic AND ecological devastation later on down
the road. But the polarity in Maine has grown so that the Greens see the
lumberjerks as environmental rapists who won't be happy until the entire
County is paved, and the lumberjacks see the eco-nuts as a handful of
misguided and possibly criminal tree-huggers who won't be happy until every
job in the County is lost. And, as it stands right now, the loggers are the
ones with all the money.
> > Besides, that horse thing was just an illustration. Other writers may be
> > able to explain things whole cloth; I've always found I've had to fall
back
> > on illustration and analogy to get a point across.
>
> For me, it's cross-country off-road riding. Unfortunately,
> I won't be allowed to do that anymore because a bunch of
> greenies in the big city seem to think they know what's
> bvest for the enviornment way out here in the middle of the
> mountains.
Well, that's what hurts my credibility today; the fact that I live in the
city NOW makes it hard for me to remind people that I lived the first twenty
years of my life in the land they want to log. There was more off-road,
dirt-bike, snowmobile and ATV traffic through my backyard than auto traffic
on the street in front of my house. On any given weekend, at least two
hundred snowmobiles would cruise by. Make any suggestions that perhaps some
moderation might be called for and I get denounced as a member of the
lifestyle police--which has a bitter irony, since it was our lifestyle being
disturbed. There is, so far as I know, no constitutional right to
snowmobiling on someone else's private property. I looked. We have a right
to bear arms, a right to free speech, a right to vote regardless of race,
but a right to buzz circles around someone's house all day and half the
night doesn't seem to be listed.
> FIrst they put our loggers out of work, Then they let
> our forests burn from lack of maintenance, then they
> complain because homeowner's insurance goes up
> because prices of materials goes up,a nd risk of fire
> damage goes up. Then they figure that by keeping
> everyone out of the forests, they'll prevent human-caused
> fires from happening.
>
> Pretty soon, those mountains will be closed to everything
> but hikers,a nd even then they might not let you camp
> overnight, or build a fire.
I keep hearing things being defended as a "way of life," and frankly, that's
a crock; after draining all the fish out of the Atlantic (hyperbole again)
the fishermen accused the government of trying to end their "way of life,"
when they were ending their way of life all by themselves and the actions of
the government were prolonging it--ease up now, and you won't have to stop
completely in six months.
The fact is, "way of life" or "lifestyle" isn't much of a defense. Slavery
was a way of life, too, and banning the ownership of slaves affected an
awful lot of lifestyles. The lifestyle of the hunter who wants to strip the
acre clear of deer interferes with my lifestyle as a hiker who wants to be
able to see the occasional wild animal. The lifestyle of the dirtbiker who
rides his noisy little dodgem through the bird sanctuary intereferes with my
lifestyle as one who visits that sanctuary to see those birds. The lifestyle
of the logger who wants to strip bare the forests interferes with my
lifestyle as a woodsman who wants forests to walk through.
So it seems that the only lifestyles that are defensible these days are
either noisy, irritating, ecologically unsound, or promote a cycle of
economic co-dependency, because that's the only time I ever hear "lifestyle"
or "way of life" trundled out as a defense. My own way of life is just as
valid, but no one's defending it with lobbyists.
> I envision a day when I get lost in the wilderness,
> get rescused, and then get fined for building the
> very campfire that saves my life.
Well, no, but if you get lost in Maine or New Hampshire, you might wind up
being charged for the cost of your own rescue. It seems the ranger service
is getting a little sick of plucking people off the sides of mountains who
were too stupid to go hiking with the proper equipment or an awareness of
potential conditions, or in defiance of public warnings.
A few people are hauled off the side of Mt. Washington every year because
despite weather warnings and equipment recommendations available free from
pretty much every public source available, they still see the mountains as a
benign theme park rather than the inherently hazardous endeavor that it is.
The cost of a rescue operation, not counting the equally inherent danger to
the rescuers themselves, has started to run into money for the parks service
and the state rangers office, and they're moving into charging people for
their own rescue if it can be proved that those who needed rescue were
responsible for their predicament. In other words, climb Mt. Washington
despite a storm warning, pay. Slip and break a leg by accident, don't pay.
I wouldn't worry too much about being fined for starting your own signal
fire, so long as it doesn't turn into a forest fire. The goals of the
current regulations being presented in Augusta, those not motivated by
panic, are to promote responsibility--on BOTH sides. The eco-nuts have just
as much responsibility to take care of the wild places as the loggers and
hunters who see it as a resource, which means knowing what the hell you're
doing before you launch yourself on an expedition. I keep expecting to see
the headline "Treehugging idiots spend night in thirty-below temperatures on
Mount Wherever, decided to scale a 4,000 foot mountain in T-shirts and
tennis shoes." I've moderated my own views so that I'm willing to meet the
loggers halfway, or at least listen and open up a dialogue, and maybe
encourage Portland's other eco-nuts to do the same thing. Slowly the message
is getting through down here--what right do a bunch of left-wing demagogues
have in telling the people in the County what they can and can't do with
their land?
Let 'em find out for themselves.
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
www.animal-man.com
Bryan Manternach
> Well, that's what hurts my credibility today; the fact that I live in the
> city NOW makes it hard for me to remind people that I lived the first twenty
> years of my life in the land they want to log. There was more off-road,
> dirt-bike, snowmobile and ATV traffic through my backyard than auto traffic
> on the street in front of my house. On any given weekend, at least two
> hundred snowmobiles would cruise by. Make any suggestions that perhaps some
> moderation might be called for and I get denounced as a member of the
> lifestyle police--which has a bitter irony, since it was our lifestyle being
> disturbed. There is, so far as I know, no constitutional right to
> snowmobiling on someone else's private property. I looked. We have a right
> to bear arms, a right to free speech, a right to vote regardless of race,
> but a right to buzz circles around someone's house all day and half the
> night doesn't seem to be listed.
But it's a civil legal issue when trespassing occours. I am referring
to public lands operated by the FWS, BLM, and other agencies.
These lands that are owned by the government, paid for by tax
payers. Not private property.
I can understand frustration about private property. On
the east coast, MOST property is privately owned. But
out here, it's the other way around . We have millions of square miles
of nothingness. YOu can go hundreds of miles without
encountering a single soul, or even a road. All there is out
there is trails, and dirt service roads, or roads that
were blazed by the few inhabitants and visitors. Roads
that don't show up one even the most complete of maps.
All of this is going to be locked up...
Management through litigation.
I really don't see how it's a lifestyle or way of life to
want to have free access to the whole country that we
call a "free country"... Too many signs inthe middle
of nowhere already read "No tespassing, US Government
property."
> The lifestyle of the hunter who wants to strip the
> acre clear of deer interferes with my lifestyle as a hiker who wants to be
> able to see the occasional wild animal.
And because of this, we now have neighborhoods overrun by
deer. Yuppies complaining because their landscaping, and
flowerbeds are being trampled, and sometiems eaten.
I'm from a place where regulated hunting licenses help
to both manage wildlife populations, and provide sporting
opportunities.
We fought for years to exterminate natural predators
such as wolves, because we feared them, and didn't
want them competing for our food source. Now we
are protecting our food source from ourselves?
> The lifestyle of the dirtbiker who
> rides his noisy little dodgem through the bird sanctuary intereferes with my
> lifestyle as one who visits that sanctuary to see those birds.
Well, nobody should be riding through a bird sanctuary, but
these days, everything is being deemed a sanctuary, or a monument
to whatever is already there. This winter, a tree fell in the
river behind my house. It fell fromt he side of the river
that is owned by a logging company, but managed closely
by government regulations driven by hard enviornmental
lobbying. This tree si not dead. It's roots came loose, but
even as it lies inthe river, collecting debris, and blocking the river,
it has new leaves this spring,a nd is still alive. It's in an
area where "old growth" is protected from cutting, and it's
circumference is JUST big enough to classify it as old growth.
SO thisthings sits there, causing the river to go around it,
eroding the bank. My neighbor's house is now teetering
on the edge of falling in the river. But, he's not allowed to
build a breakwall because of the sedimentation issues
downstream, and some special endangered fish is at risk
in the river.
Of course, his homeowner's insurance won't cover it,
and flood insurance only works if the river meets your
house, not if your house meets the river. I'm glad I don't
own the house I am renting because this one's next inline
for erosion issues.
> The lifestyle
> of the logger who wants to strip bare the forests interferes with my
> lifestyle as a woodsman who wants forests to walk through.
More misconceptions. True, there are irresponsibel loggers who
clear-cut. But clear-cutting doesn't ahve a future. Most logging
companies have found it more efficient to manage the forests
better,a nd take material from wider areas, allowing trees to
mature. Of course, areas where logging along with management
cuts have been forbidden, we now have raging forest fires.
Los Alamos New Mexico almost went up in flames because
the forest was so overgrown,and unmanaged that it went
up like a tinder box,and ended up jsut as barren as a clearcut,
but far more damaged, and charred. So, now, instead of
managing a forest, the park services out there are mitigating
erosion, tryingto keep top soil, and ash in place long enough
to get vegetation to grow on the charred places.
> I wouldn't worry too much about being fined for starting your own signal
> fire, so long as it doesn't turn into a forest fire. The goals of the
> current regulations being presented in Augusta, those not motivated by
> panic, are to promote responsibility--on BOTH sides.
Yes, but every time I hear that, it always turns into unreasonable
sacrifices. "let's coup all the dirt bike sup onto small tracts of land
so the millions of acres can be preserved" Then... years later,
the same lobbys saying " Look what all the dirt bikes did to this
small piece of land... Jsut imagine what they are doing to the
trail system"... Ignoring the fact that they themselves created
the problem by closing all but a few small parks,and forcing everyone
to use small areas until those areas are utterly destroyed.
> The eco-nuts have just
> as much responsibility to take care of the wild places as the loggers and
> hunters who see it as a resource, which means knowing what the hell you're
> doing before you launch yourself on an expedition. I keep expecting to see
> the headline "Treehugging idiots spend night in thirty-below temperatures on
> Mount Wherever, decided to scale a 4,000 foot mountain in T-shirts and
> tennis shoes." I've moderated my own views so that I'm willing to meet the
> loggers halfway, or at least listen and open up a dialogue, and maybe
> encourage Portland's other eco-nuts to do the same thing. Slowly the message
> is getting through down here--what right do a bunch of left-wing demagogues
> have in telling the people in the County what they can and can't do with
> their land?
Well, CLinton thought he could turn Amish farms near Columbus Ohio
into a national monument, regardless of the wishes of the people living there.
yes, animal manure fertilizer was contaminating the watershed, and
threatening some rare fresh ater mollusk. But animals have been
crapping on the land for millennia before we put in septic systems!
--
"I sense much NT in you. NT leads to Blue Screen. Blue Screen
leads to downtime. Downtime leads to suffering. NT is the path
to the darkside." -- Unknown UNIX Jedi
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan 'SMASH' Manternach - ECS/TREX Systems Administration Team
SGI, 1200 Crittenden Pkwy, MS 30-4-175, Mountain View, CA 94943
E-mail: mailto:sm...@sgi.com Voice: (650)933-6856
Pager: mailto:sma...@pager.sgi.com Pager: (650)317-8483
coyote
But when it comes to a matter of environmental protection being
inconvenient for humans...
I just have to say "tough shit" to the humans. It's inconvenient? It
wrecks your house? It causes economic harship? Sorry... Tough Shit. How
much harder have humans been on nature?
Agreed... some laws intended to help are stupid, and are enforced in a
way that is blind...
But as for your friend whose house is endangered by the living tree...
sorry... that would fall into my "tough shit" category. Rivers are good
at moving around trees. That's what that erosion is. People are
notoriously bad about building houses in places where somethgin will eat
them. On the sides of steep embankments, next to waterways, on flood
plains... near volcanoes.
Humans are not being threatened in any appreciable way by ANYTHING
nature is doing. The worst diseases and natural disasters, much less
little things like where a tree has fallen do not really threaten
humanity in any appreciable, dangerous way.
The reverse, unfortuntely, is not true.
I'd be all for opening up those empty lands you talk about... except
that I've seen what happens. What happens is that idiots go in on
dirtbikes and 4x4's and tear it up. Beer cans and trash are left
everywhere. Brush fires get started by jerks who cannot be bothered to
manage a campfire or are too drunk to try. Stuff gets all shot up by
idiots with guns.
It KILLS me that places that I would appreciate and respect and be
enlivened by are off limits. But I'd rather have that than have them be
just totally screwed up. If those were my only choices, that is.
The big unfortunate thing, as I see it, is that the laws designed to
protect nature often don't. They aren't good enough, smart enough or
enforced wnough. They are being made by people with views and ideas just
as flawed (well maybe a little less) as the ones who tore everything up
to begin with. When an environmental law is made stupidly... that gives
ammo to groups who want to strike down ALL laws they dislike.
Coyote
--
coy...@i-hwy.net - (706) 549-8701 - 162 White Court; Athens, GA 30605
Kamatu
"coyote" <coy...@i-hwy.net> wrote in message
news:coyote-30F474....@news1.rdc1.ga.home.com...
--
Kamatu
King of AHWW
http://www.ahww.net
Bryan Manternach
> Smash... I like ya...
>
> But when it comes to a matter of environmental protection being
> inconvenient for humans...
>
> I just have to say "tough shit" to the humans. It's inconvenient? It
> wrecks your house? It causes economic harship? Sorry... Tough Shit. How
> much harder have humans been on nature?
Well, given that undeveloped property here gies between
$15K and $20K per acre, houses are $500K and up, and
and how hard we have to work to pay rent, let alone
mortgages, it's a bit more than an inconvenience. We're
talking about losing a home.
> But as for your friend whose house is endangered by the living tree...
> sorry... that would fall into my "tough shit" category. Rivers are good
> at moving around trees. That's what that erosion is. People are
> notoriously bad about building houses in places where somethgin will eat
> them. On the sides of steep embankments, next to waterways, on flood
> plains... near volcanoes.
That's a very ignoprant thing to say. In areas like this, the terrain is
incredibly steep, and the only places not too steep to build on are
near waterways, and beaches. Everything else is steep slopes,
and rocky cliffs.
> Humans are not being threatened in any appreciable way by ANYTHING
> nature is doing. The worst diseases and natural disasters, much less
> little things like where a tree has fallen do not really threaten
> humanity in any appreciable, dangerous way.
You will sing a different tune if you ever have to face
the loss of your home, with no way to rebuild, or recover
financially to buy a new one someplace else.
> I'd be all for opening up those empty lands you talk about... except
> that I've seen what happens. What happens is that idiots go in on
> dirtbikes and 4x4's and tear it up. Beer cans and trash are left
> everywhere. Brush fires get started by jerks who cannot be bothered to
> manage a campfire or are too drunk to try. Stuff gets all shot up by
> idiots with guns.
Bigot! Yes, IDIOTS do that. I ride trails a LOT. I'm not
out there tearing up the soil. 99.99% of the riders out there
are responsible. It's the .001% that get noticed because
they have no clue. Just like the 99.99% of enviornmentalists
are perfectly reasonable folks. The .001% left over are the
ones driving spikes into trees, chaining themselves by the
neck to bulldozers, and stringing piano wires across trails to
decapitate ATV riders.
> It KILLS me that places that I would appreciate and respect and be
> enlivened by are off limits. But I'd rather have that than have them be
> just totally screwed up. If those were my only choices, that is.
They are only totally screwed up by mismanagement.
Instead of spending money on management, our
land managment services are forced to waste their
time, and money defending litigation, and losing
prescious funding for their programs in order to
fend off law suits from extremist lobbys.
> The big unfortunate thing, as I see it, is that the laws designed to
> protect nature often don't. They aren't good enough, smart enough or
> enforced wnough. They are being made by people with views and ideas just
> as flawed (well maybe a little less) as the ones who tore everything up
> to begin with. When an environmental law is made stupidly... that gives
> ammo to groups who want to strike down ALL laws they dislike.
If both sides of the argument would start to work WITH the
management agencies, instead of resorting to litigation,
the agencies might have enough money and time to put
worthwhile plans in place that could educate, and enlighten all
people who access, and use our natural resources.
Too many people are concerned with what *THEY* personally
want, and not what is the best for everyone involved. It's
short sighted, and ignorant.
Ben Goodridge
I think what we have here between Smash and Coyote validates what I've been
talking about--regionalistic emotionalisms begin to drive the debate and it
doesn't take long for the insults to start flying. I hope neither of you
mind if I farm your posts for valid points.
I'd also like to point out that we all live in radically different areas of
the country--Coyote is in the deep south, Smash on the West Coast, and I'm
in the Great North Woods. In these three areas of the country, the land-use
regulations are very different, as is the land that's being used.
Smash: Coyote has valid concerns about ecological impact where he lives; he
moved from an ecologically fragile state into one that's slowly collapsing
under the weight of its own urban sprawl. Sprawl in Georgia and Florida is
so widespread and devastating that it's starting to make national headlines.
Coyote: Smash is writing from California, a state where the federal
government has staked out huge tracts of land for no purpose that seems to
benefit the taxpayers. Public lands come with various levels of access
restriction, and Smash's frustration is understandable if they're being
manipulated arbitrarily at the whim of a handful of people who have never
been there, will never go there, have no inherent interest in protecting the
property beyond the "Oo! Land! Let's protect it!" ideal, and who have no
interest in maintenance and upkeep of that land once they've ensured that no
one may set foot upon it. There is no evidence that these lands contain
endangered or protected species or that the environmental impact outweighs
the economic benefits.
Maine faces each of these problems--admittedly in miniature. Sprawl-infested
southern Maine has its own fair share of eco-nuts who picket happily against
clear-cutting in Aroostook County though they've never been there. I've
always leaned on the side of the eco-nuts, for various reasons; the loggers
are NOT humble innocents just tryin' to turn a buck. Much of the land in
Northern Maine is owned by out-of-state paper companies like Sappi, Inc. and
Maine isn't really getting the full economic benefits from the land that it
should, given the extent to which they're workin' it. The reason Maine sees
so little economic benefit from its own land is because them loggers in the
County decided they didn't want no city slicks from Augusta tellin' 'em how
they ought to use their land--they'd much rather have a faceless,
out-of-state multinational doing that.
Bryan Manternach <sm...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:3ADCE08B...@sgi.com...
> coyote wrote:
>
> > Smash... I like ya...
> >
> > But when it comes to a matter of environmental protection being
> > inconvenient for humans...
> >
> > I just have to say "tough shit" to the humans. It's inconvenient? It
> > wrecks your house? It causes economic harship? Sorry... Tough Shit. How
> > much harder have humans been on nature?
>
> Well, given that undeveloped property here gies between
> $15K and $20K per acre, houses are $500K and up, and
> and how hard we have to work to pay rent, let alone
> mortgages, it's a bit more than an inconvenience. We're
> talking about losing a home.
In Maine it can be hard to build a home that Nature will be in a position to
knock over, though we certainly have enough idiots who build ten-room
farmhouses on five-year flood plains and then have the gall to bitch when
the State won't bail them out over and over again. If Nature wants to steal
a home here in Maine, we have to figure that Nature must have wanted that
home really bad, and if it wanted it all that bad, it might just as well
have it. During the Blizzard of '78, three homes in Camp Ellis got washed
into the sea by the storm surge. The rest of Camp Ellis got the hint and
jacked up their houses and pushed them back considerably. When the
rafter-snapper roared through here in March, there wasn't so much as a wet
basement. Today we tend to sell beachfront property to out of staters who
don't know no better. In those cases, yes, as a matter of fact, we are
talking about an inconvenience; we're talking about some Connecticut
lawyer's three-season summer place taking the plunge.
So yes, as a matter of fact, if you're dumb enough to put a home somewhere
that the elements can get to it, tough shit on ya. I'm sorry you lost your
house, but if it's Maine you could have bought one for one-tenth the price
four miles inland and you'd still have it. Nothing like putting the
well-being of your family or economic situation at risk just so you can have
a pretty view of the ocean, be close to the river, or teeter on the edge of
a banking.
> > But as for your friend whose house is endangered by the living tree...
> > sorry... that would fall into my "tough shit" category. Rivers are good
> > at moving around trees. That's what that erosion is. People are
> > notoriously bad about building houses in places where somethgin will eat
> > them. On the sides of steep embankments, next to waterways, on flood
> > plains... near volcanoes.
>
> That's a very ignoprant thing to say. In areas like this, the terrain is
> incredibly steep, and the only places not too steep to build on are
> near waterways, and beaches. Everything else is steep slopes,
> and rocky cliffs.
The question then being--why build at all? Why spend all that time and money
to build a row of houses on the side of a banking, sell them at an absurdly
inflated price, and then complain when they tumble downhill?
"Here's a nice little three-bedroom, bath-and-a-half unit, with skylights,
center island kitchen and open floor plan. As you can see, out here you have
a beautiful view of the river. Of course, we haven't actually done any soil
testing to determine if the ground can support the weight of the home, and
the architect isn't at all sure of the materials he used to design the
foundation, but what the hell. Stability is so fifties; today's families are
used to living on the edge! And in just a few years, I bet you will be..."
> > Humans are not being threatened in any appreciable way by ANYTHING
> > nature is doing. The worst diseases and natural disasters, much less
> > little things like where a tree has fallen do not really threaten
> > humanity in any appreciable, dangerous way.
>
> You will sing a different tune if you ever have to face
> the loss of your home, with no way to rebuild, or recover
> financially to buy a new one someplace else.
Maybe you both noticed that you're arguing on two different fronts here;
Osborne j'accusing humanity as a whole while Smash talks about individual
tragedy. If someone is entangled in the bureaucracy then that's the fault of
the bureaucracy, not the intentions. The Sierra Club or the National
Geographic Society or whoever is responsible for the Byzantine regulata
slowly tearing down this alleged house did not set out to deliberately tear
down houses by erecting the regulata.
> > I'd be all for opening up those empty lands you talk about... except
> > that I've seen what happens. What happens is that idiots go in on
> > dirtbikes and 4x4's and tear it up. Beer cans and trash are left
> > everywhere. Brush fires get started by jerks who cannot be bothered to
> > manage a campfire or are too drunk to try. Stuff gets all shot up by
> > idiots with guns.
>
> Bigot! Yes, IDIOTS do that. I ride trails a LOT. I'm not
> out there tearing up the soil. 99.99% of the riders out there
> are responsible. It's the .001% that get noticed because
> they have no clue. Just like the 99.99% of enviornmentalists
> are perfectly reasonable folks. The .001% left over are the
> ones driving spikes into trees, chaining themselves by the
> neck to bulldozers, and stringing piano wires across trails to
> decapitate ATV riders.
I'll have to remember that piano wire thing for my family's backyard next
time I go home. I'd never heard that one before. I also can't really help
but notice that the only people who ever talk about the spikes in the trees
are the lumberjacks. I'm not saying it's never happened before, I'm just a
little suspicious of it. A lumberjack, too ready to believe that his job is
in jeopardy not due to the depletion of his resource or a dearth of demand
for his particular economy, but simply via the shifting visscitudes of
political winds, would probably be happy to believe that anyone lunatic
enough to want to end his only source of income by legislating his job away
probably wouldn't stop at spiking a tree. Yet I challenge anyone to present
me with a verifiable story of tree spiking. Or ATV rider decapitation.
(Where the hell did you hear about the ATV rider decapitation?)
But if you "ride the trails a LOT," then you ARE tearing up the soil. Just
WALKING on trails a lot tears up the soil. I decided not to hike to Chimney
Pond last year because of reports of soil erosion along the Chimney Pond
Trail, the single most hiked trail in the State of Maine. (I exclude
Appalachian, since that's more of an Interstate trail.) You don't have to be
spinning out or popping wheelies to have an effect. The Chimney Pond Trail
has never in its existence hosted a snowmobile, ATV, or dirt bike. If it can
be eroded though free of them, imagine the level of damage a motor vehicle
WOULD do.
It's nice to know that where Smash comes from, the jerks are in the radical
minority. Here in Maine they seem to be the norm. Snowmobilers, dirtbikers,
and four-wheelers have ZERO respect for private property.
Here is a hint of irony that Smash may or may not appreciate. In
Carrabassett Valley, property rights were brought into the courts when John
Carter and his eco-nuts threatened a clearcutting ban. How dare, they said,
these people not allow us to tend our own property? A few years later, the
Maliseet Indians posted their land--no hunting, hiking, or off-roading of
any kind allowed. The same people--the EXACT SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE--again
exploded--how dare, they said, do these people threaten our way of life by
exercising their property rights?
The point is that people--and this isn't some radical 0.0001 percent, but
the vast, sprawling majority--are far more interested in the rules that most
greatly benefit them than in the greater good.
>> t KILLS me that places that I would appreciate and respect and be
> > enlivened by are off limits. But I'd rather have that than have them be
> > just totally screwed up. If those were my only choices, that is.
>
> They are only totally screwed up by mismanagement.
> Instead of spending money on management, our
> land managment services are forced to waste their
> time, and money defending litigation, and losing
> prescious funding for their programs in order to
> fend off law suits from extremist lobbys.
Well, that's not true; I had to abandon a hike up Mt. O-J-I last year in
part because poor weather had collapsed one of the trails. (It's tragic;
it's not really O-J-I anymore...) Not everything that keeps one out of the
forests is directly attributable to human intervention. For what it's worth,
Baxter State Park IS "managed," as in, being an old-growth forest, care is
taken to ensure that it stays that way--WITHOUT the property being logged
naked or developed into a minimall. It is free of snowmobiles, dirt-bikers,
four-wheelers, hunters, trappers, developers, loggers, and any form of
ownership of any kind. And there are still vast regions of it that are off
limits, for the safety of the tourists or for the protection of the
wildlife. Some of the highland tundra regions are unspeakably fragile. I've
read literature on the overwhelming damage done to certain types of turf and
brush by both well-meaning eco-nuts and tourists looking for cheap
souvenirs.
> > The big unfortunate thing, as I see it, is that the laws designed to
> > protect nature often don't. They aren't good enough, smart enough or
> > enforced wnough. They are being made by people with views and ideas just
> > as flawed (well maybe a little less) as the ones who tore everything up
> > to begin with. When an environmental law is made stupidly... that gives
> > ammo to groups who want to strike down ALL laws they dislike.
>
> If both sides of the argument would start to work WITH the
> management agencies, instead of resorting to litigation,
> the agencies might have enough money and time to put
> worthwhile plans in place that could educate, and enlighten all
> people who access, and use our natural resources.
But who can help but question the motives of "management agencies"? The
Forest Products Council has as its bottom line THE bottom line--making a
buck. Owned by out-of-state interests, Sappi Inc. has no real vested
interest in protecting the North Woods resources it uses. When Maine's
forests are stripped bare it'll simply sell its remaining interest and move
on to the next bit of land. Over and over again I've seen companies use a
resource and then simply move on once they've used it, leaving those left
behind to pick up the pieces. Some part of Maine is bought by someone from
out of state, bled white, sold to another country, and then whoever bought
it walks off with all the money, leaving Maine with the confusion. Do you
really want Maine's forests left in the hands of people like that? In the
age of NAFTA and the FTAA, do you really think Maine and the US DEP can
defend themselves against them?
> Too many people are concerned with what *THEY* personally
> want, and not what is the best for everyone involved. It's
> short sighted, and ignorant.
So what's best? I want dirt-bike free ranges, you want a range to ride your
dirt-bike in. Evidently we both have our own very special ideas of what's
appropriate for a forest environment.
The only way to make us both happy is to have enough land around so that you
have room to ride your dirt bike and if I have a no-dirt-bikes-allowed
space. (A no-smoking section?) The only trouble is that to get this
no-dirt-bikes-allowed space, I have to put up a sign that says "No dirt
bikes allowed." This is the point at which the dirt biker hits the roof.
Despite having sprawling, rolling hills, fields, plains, mountains and
valleys in which to ride his dirt bike, the banning of dirt bikes from a
handful of the more pristine or fragile places is an affront to all
dirt-bikery, seen as the slippery slope wherein eventually all dirt-biking
is banned from all public territory. Yet for every acre that you could
complain about a no-dirt-bikes-allowed rule, I can show you ten acres where
you're free to ride your dirt bike day and night--but would that stop you
from complaining about the acre where you can't?
On the off-chance that you think this is a facetious analogy, you ought to
hear the thunderous roar being raised from holy hell by the snowmobilers in
Maine who are shrieking unreasonably for the right to ride in Baxter State
Park--despite the fact that the entire rest of the state is their very
oyster in re snowmobiling. They have twenty five thousand square miles to
play in--but they want it ALL.
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
www.animal-man.com
Bryan Manternach
>
> I'd also like to point out that we all live in radically different areas of
> the country--Coyote is in the deep south, Smash on the West Coast, and I'm
> in the Great North Woods. In these three areas of the country, the land-use
> regulations are very different, as is the land that's being used.
>
But that's jsut the problem. Some regulations don't vary! Big government
has stepped in in the past 8 years to interject themselves where they aren't
needed. Federal laws get proposed,a ndoften passed, that regulate
resources on a national level. Many times these regulations are not
what is wanted or needed for every area. Many decisions need to be
left to the people who live there.
> Smash: Coyote has valid concerns about ecological impact where he lives; he
> moved from an ecologically fragile state into one that's slowly collapsing
> under the weight of its own urban sprawl. Sprawl in Georgia and Florida is
> so widespread and devastating that it's starting to make national headlines.
And here, sprawl would be bad, but it's contained by natural boundaries like
waterways, and mountain ranges. So real-estate is in high demand. Not only
is there less space that is buildable, more companies move in, and build
buildings wher ehomes are really needed. So home prices continue to
skyrocket. I can't fathom paying half a million dollars for a 900 sq foot
shhack built on a landfill. But that is what it is like here. It's hard
to make ends meet. WHen someone makes a decision about my home
who doesn't have to live here, and deal with this stuff day to day,
I resent it. IF the politician who spopnsored the bill, or mandate
requiring this live tree in our river to be left there, lived in one of
these houses, you can BET that the ruling would be overturned!
> Coyote: Smash is writing from California, a state where the federal
> government has staked out huge tracts of land for no purpose that seems to
> benefit the taxpayers. Public lands come with various levels of access
> restriction, and Smash's frustration is understandable if they're being
> manipulated arbitrarily at the whim of a handful of people who have never
> been there, will never go there, have no inherent interest in protecting the
> property beyond the "Oo! Land! Let's protect it!" ideal, and who have no
> interest in maintenance and upkeep of that land once they've ensured that no
> one may set foot upon it.
State government, too. Kalifornia is a communist state.
> There is no evidence that these lands contain
> endangered or protected species or that the environmental impact outweighs
> the economic benefits.
But that's jsut it. IF someone doesn't like ORV's (Off road vehicles) in
a specific area, all tehy have to do is find one single species of plant
or aimal tha tmightbe affected, and go into litigation claiming there
is an impact. Then the TAXPAYERS foot the bill for an actual
enviornmental impact study. The studys usually turn up some form
of native grass, or plant that helps stop erosion. Then all tey have to do
is show photos of a trail. ANY trail, nto even an ORV trail, in that
area, where the plant is nto growing,a nd soil is eroding from use,
and BLAMO! The whole place gets shut down!
Did you know that someone actually found something endangered
in the empire desert, and now it's getting closed off to ORVs!
The empire desert is MILES and MILES of nothig but sand dunes,
with a few patches of grass here and there, mostly around the edges.
If someone wants to, they can find enviornmental impact anywhere
they look, no matter how miniscule, it's always there. It's called
CHANGE, and CHANGE is what keeps us all alive, the earth
turning,a nd trees growing.
Wanderer
>coyote wrote:
>
>> Smash... I like ya...
>>
>> But when it comes to a matter of environmental protection being
>> inconvenient for humans...
>>
>> I just have to say "tough shit" to the humans. It's inconvenient? It
>> wrecks your house? It causes economic harship? Sorry... Tough Shit. How
>> much harder have humans been on nature?
>
>Well, given that undeveloped property here gies between
>$15K and $20K per acre, houses are $500K and up, and
>and how hard we have to work to pay rent, let alone
>mortgages, it's a bit more than an inconvenience. We're
>talking about losing a home.
Nothing new there, O Smash. Bear in mind that nature's killed a lot more
houses than that ... between Tornado Alley, the San Andreas Fault, the
slipping sands of Malibu, and live volcanoes, good old Mother Nature makes a
great homewrecker.
What Coyote's pointing out, though, is that, by comparison, we mostly get
off easy. Your neighbor's house may perish, but he can move. You'll be
moving away from the erosion as well. But wolves, bears, panthers and such
have a *very* limited choice of places to live ... not just wilderness, but
the right kind of wilderness, and enough of it.
>
>> But as for your friend whose house is endangered by the living tree...
>> sorry... that would fall into my "tough shit" category. Rivers are good
>> at moving around trees. That's what that erosion is. People are
>> notoriously bad about building houses in places where somethgin will eat
>> them. On the sides of steep embankments, next to waterways, on flood
>> plains... near volcanoes.
>
>That's a very ignoprant thing to say. In areas like this, the terrain is
>incredibly steep, and the only places not too steep to build on are
>near waterways, and beaches. Everything else is steep slopes,
>and rocky cliffs.
<blink> I take it you've never heard of the mountain cabins built on
60-degree slopes? Stilt houses built on the water? There are more options
for housebuilding than the flat clearing ... they just take a little more
work and cleverness.
>
>> Humans are not being threatened in any appreciable way by ANYTHING
>> nature is doing. The worst diseases and natural disasters, much less
>> little things like where a tree has fallen do not really threaten
>> humanity in any appreciable, dangerous way.
>
>You will sing a different tune if you ever have to face
>the loss of your home, with no way to rebuild, or recover
>financially to buy a new one someplace else.
He said "humanity", Smash, as in the whole two-legged species in question.
Humans may die ... but humanity lives.
And there's always a way to rebuild and recover. It may be unpleasant, it
may take years ... but, judging from the fact that even some homeless people
really do get homes again, I'd say it happens.
>
>> I'd be all for opening up those empty lands you talk about... except
>> that I've seen what happens. What happens is that idiots go in on
>> dirtbikes and 4x4's and tear it up. Beer cans and trash are left
>> everywhere. Brush fires get started by jerks who cannot be bothered to
>> manage a campfire or are too drunk to try. Stuff gets all shot up by
>> idiots with guns.
>
>Bigot! Yes, IDIOTS do that. I ride trails a LOT. I'm not
>out there tearing up the soil. 99.99% of the riders out there
>are responsible. It's the .001% that get noticed because
>they have no clue. Just like the 99.99% of enviornmentalists
>are perfectly reasonable folks. The .001% left over are the
>ones driving spikes into trees, chaining themselves by the
>neck to bulldozers, and stringing piano wires across trails to
>decapitate ATV riders.
Well, Smash, you can call him "Bigot!", all you like. The fact remains that
if the idiots can get in, they'll ruin the place. And you and I both know
an IQ-based usage restriction would never get past the ACLU ...
>
>> It KILLS me that places that I would appreciate and respect and be
>> enlivened by are off limits. But I'd rather have that than have them be
>> just totally screwed up. If those were my only choices, that is.
>
>They are only totally screwed up by mismanagement.
>Instead of spending money on management, our
>land managment services are forced to waste their
>time, and money defending litigation, and losing
>prescious funding for their programs in order to
>fend off law suits from extremist lobbys.
In both directions.:/
>
>> The big unfortunate thing, as I see it, is that the laws designed to
>> protect nature often don't. They aren't good enough, smart enough or
>> enforced wnough. They are being made by people with views and ideas just
>> as flawed (well maybe a little less) as the ones who tore everything up
>> to begin with. When an environmental law is made stupidly... that gives
>> ammo to groups who want to strike down ALL laws they dislike.
>
>If both sides of the argument would start to work WITH the
>management agencies, instead of resorting to litigation,
>the agencies might have enough money and time to put
>worthwhile plans in place that could educate, and enlighten all
>people who access, and use our natural resources.
The problem, O Smash, is that people, whether they be blue-collar workers or
white-collar CEOs, do not care to be dictated to in any way.
Allow me to draw a parallel:
Let's take Kamatu and Safari as polluters in the biosphere of
alt.horror.werewolves. The rest of us make up the EPA.
Now, when Kamatu and Safari pollute the biosphere of the newsgroup, what are
the EPA's options?
Reason with them: All right. Talks break down because Kamatu doesn't see
why he should accept restrictions on "his" newsgroup, and safari simply
ignores the letter you send him. What next?
Fine them: Not a bad idea. Unfortunately, we have just as much power to
enforce fines as the real EPA does ... not much. (The EPA doesn't collect
very often, no.)
Arrest them?: Not gonna happen. Like the EPA, we don't have legal
authority to arrest someone for polluting ... especially since the law
states that pollution crimes are to be referred to the EPA, rather than the
courts at large.
When dealing with a company that is willing to co-operate and comply, the
EPA can get things done. With those who refuse to comply, it's like getting
gnawed on by a week-old kitten; not only harmless, but amusing for the
target.
>
>Too many people are concerned with what *THEY* personally
>want, and not what is the best for everyone involved. It's
>short sighted, and ignorant.
>
Thus, alas, the problem.
Yours wolfishly,
The analogical,
Wanderer**wand...@ticnet.com
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Kamatu
Go figure.
Yet, poor pathetic Wanderer hasn't the nutsack to take the Royal off his
killfile.
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:6EB58FDEF3E1C9E3.666D0A48...@lp.airnews.net...
Let's make the Royal Family the Donald Trumps, and Wanderer the turd in his
toilet.
> Now, when Kamatu and Safari pollute the biosphere of the newsgroup, what
are
> the EPA's options?
>
> Reason with them: All right. Talks break down because Kamatu doesn't see
> why he should accept restrictions on "his" newsgroup, and safari simply
> ignores the letter you send him. What next?
>
Killfile them, but talk about them anyway?
What a fucking ball-less loser.
9 years in University and he pumps gas for a living...
> Fine them: Not a bad idea. Unfortunately, we have just as much power to
> enforce fines as the real EPA does ... not much. (The EPA doesn't collect
> very often, no.)
>
And this comes from the guy who believes Usenet needs working capital.
> Arrest them?: Not gonna happen. Like the EPA, we don't have legal
> authority to arrest someone for polluting ... especially since the law
> states that pollution crimes are to be referred to the EPA, rather than
the
> courts at large.
>
> When dealing with a company that is willing to co-operate and comply, the
> EPA can get things done. With those who refuse to comply, it's like
getting
> gnawed on by a week-old kitten; not only harmless, but amusing for the
> target.
>
> >
> >Too many people are concerned with what *THEY* personally
> >want, and not what is the best for everyone involved. It's
> >short sighted, and ignorant.
> >
>
> Thus, alas, the problem.
>
> Yours wolfishly,
>
> The analogical,
>
> Wanderer**wand...@ticnet.com
> Where am I going?I don't quite know.
> What does it matter where people go?
> Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
> Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
>
>
Princess Safari
and well thought out posts from others. Maybe I'll have time for one of my
newest stalkers next week.
>===== Original Message From "Kamatu" <nq...@nujj.arg> =====
Princess Safari
Member of the AHWW royal family
Moderated groups are for sheep who need to be told what to say.
Willow
>
> I believe wholeheartedly that the human race has the ability among all
> other animals to create on of the greatest and most amazing societies we
> could imagine. One that would live in harmony with itself and nature. I
> also know it has the greatest ability among all of the animals to be the
> most retarded bunch of fuck ups ever to mangle this planet with it's
> footsteps.
Basically because one stupid move can fuck everything up. A rabbit that
fucks up dies. If the wrong person fucks up, we all die. I share your
belief. Humanity is an infant with great potential...
> I can see human society eating up the land around and polluting. I can
> also see that it is eating itself alive in most cultures at this point.
> It is almost fascinatingly beautiful at this point with me. It is a
> monster who's violent heart is burning out of control more and more
> every day. What is the oddest thing about it is that the end of all that
> pain and destruction is within them.
If today we all decide to fix the hunger problem, next week it is
done. Just cancel mac donalds and send the food they consume to where it
is needed... Seriously. The amount of resources needed to bake a burger is
incredible.. One person living only of mac donalds burgers consumes about
10 times the resources he needs.
> But in the wake of all of that there is something coming. A tedious new
> age that seems to be developing from all that new knowledge. A sort of
> birth if you will. I don't know if the "natural" world will be around by
> the time it comes about, but unless humans stop it, little else will.
> Humans will go on unless humans beat themselves.
Yeah, well, that new age has been in the making for uhm ages. If it
arrives it wont arrive too soon.... :(
Still we see some good things evolving I hope there is time.
> You know what I don't like. I don't like the fact that we can't start
> enforcing intelligence on people.
We can, it's simple, not by laws, but by education. Education and health
care should be the highest priorities of a society. Just impose by law
that people should follow education untill they're 16 or 17 years old
helps but we should also make sure that the educations they follow are
worthwhile. A bit less heavy science and a bit more social science will
help IMHO. Especially truths about resource management. We're a
consumistic society because kids are taught that if they don't have the
latest video games and sport shoes they're outcasts. Kids are by nature
uneducated but usually smarter than we expect. Input the right values and
the output will be utopia. In my experience they will get the point.
The belief about the rotten eggs in the basket is the cause for the bad
resource management. The belief that if you don't get enough the bad guy
is going to get it, because he will take whatever he can. It's like a
cancer, first the dumbasses do it, then the rest will follow
suit. Humanity is a herding species. If someone panics and runs out of a
confused situation the rest is likely to follow without other reasons.
> Look at the Poconos. You got bears
> there. So, these city people (Who frankly would sooner feed a wolf than
> shoot it) feed the bears out of their houses. Of course, they are
> repeatedly warned not to, but bears are big cute and fuzzy. So, the
> bears come back looking for food and go into houses and become
> dangerous. Of course, this leads to the death of the bear because they
> will seek out houses no matter where they are placed after this. But
> that is like killing the symptom. OK, you may have to kill the bear, but
> lets kill the problem too. After a couple of public executions I am
> quite sure the hint would sink in to most people. I am sure people don't
> want the cute bears to die, and they probably don't want them in the
> house snacking on the kids. I am sure the bears don't want to get shot.
> Seems like a good solution to all, and it would lessen the population
> along with thinning out that stupid gene that seems to be running
> rampant. Ok, maybe the people getting executed and their families might
> not like it, but it isn't like this was a hard thing to figure out.
Yeah, it's sad though.
> How about if you are 14 and have a baby it is time to fix the happy
> couple. It isn't like we want these goofballs, who can't figure out how
> to purchase some birth control, mucking up our gene pool.
14 is young but 16 physically is the ideal age to kick a few cubs into
the world. Those kids are generally healthier smarter and prettier. The
only problem is that a 16 year old is hardly ready to raise kids, they're
kids themselves. The best age to raise kids is 40 or 50. Where you have
the energy to physically manage them and the wisdom to teach them. But at
those ages your biology is degraded to the point where your offspring is
less healthy less smart and less attractive.
The solution is simple, let the 16 year olds get kids and let the
50 year olds raise them. You're risen by grandma and grandpa, the parents
are present as half kids half workers and help raising the kids, becoming
ready to raise their grandchildren.
Only, that would require a step back from the so valued individuality
back to a more tribal system. I doubt humanity is ready for that.
> How about along with cutting abortion aid to these third world countries
> we also kill off food and medical aid. Let them starve to death. You
> want food from us, you stop breeding like rabbits and we will talk.
Then they will starve. It would be like just telling a dog, push that
button and get fed, otherwise starve. Most of them wont get it and the few
that do die with the rest.
You need to train them...
> Come to think about it, I don't know why I was arguing so hard against
> drugs. There is a nice western form of population control. Shoot up,
> smoke crack, hit that joint hard. Kill yourself slow and painful. Man, I
> don't know you, so who cares. Just means another job opening for someone
> who would rather work for their happiness. Have a nice flight, tootles
> :)
Lol, I wish you would have come to that conclusion earlier. Let
evolution sort it out. We'll see what happens. Lets not argue the fact
that people have used drugs for longer than people can write. Maybe 100
times longer. All the way back to that vague period where you don't know
if you're talking about animals or humans.
Willow
Princess Safari
>> For smash and coyote's little environmental argument.
>>
>> I believe wholeheartedly that the human race has the ability among all
>> other animals to create on of the greatest and most amazing societies we
>> could imagine. One that would live in harmony with itself and nature. I
>> also know it has the greatest ability among all of the animals to be the
>> most retarded bunch of fuck ups ever to mangle this planet with it's
>> footsteps.
> Basically because one stupid move can fuck everything up. A rabbit that
>fucks up dies. If the wrong person fucks up, we all die. I share your
>belief. Humanity is an infant with great potential...
Wow, talk about your overreactions. Silly type person, it is nothing lie
that.
One person can fuck up and we all do not die. What a dumb ass statement. If
that were true it would be legal to kill you before your extinct us all. My
life in the hands of a pothead, now that is scary.
BTW shouldn't you be posting as moonchild now?
>
>> I can see human society eating up the land around and polluting. I can
>> also see that it is eating itself alive in most cultures at this point.
>> It is almost fascinatingly beautiful at this point with me. It is a
>> monster who's violent heart is burning out of control more and more
>> every day. What is the oddest thing about it is that the end of all that
>> pain and destruction is within them.
> If today we all decide to fix the hunger problem, next week it is
>done. Just cancel mac donalds and send the food they consume to where it
>is needed... Seriously. The amount of resources needed to bake a burger is
>incredible.. One person living only of mac donalds burgers consumes about
>10 times the resources he needs.
I used to work at Mcdonalds. I think you are a tad silly. I was able to
prepare food for a busload of people within mere minutes. seems to me to be
a
pretty good use of resources.
>
>> But in the wake of all of that there is something coming. A tedious new
>> age that seems to be developing from all that new knowledge. A sort of
>> birth if you will. I don't know if the "natural" world will be around by
>> the time it comes about, but unless humans stop it, little else will.
>> Humans will go on unless humans beat themselves.
> Yeah, well, that new age has been in the making for uhm ages. If it
>arrives it wont arrive too soon.... :(
> Still we see some good things evolving I hope there is time.
Well, the intelligent have to work harder because some people like to smoke
themselves retarded.
>
>> You know what I don't like. I don't like the fact that we can't start
>> enforcing intelligence on people.
> We can, it's simple, not by laws, but by education.
I guess truancy isn't a word in the netherlands. It probably isn't a
concern,
if I could have smoked up in class I probably would have gone to class more
also.
Education and health
>care should be the highest priorities of a society.
Health care? did you read my post? Do you think I want to pay for a
pothead's
iron lung? Let em die, more resources for the rest of us, and more doctors
for
peope who didn't chose to smoke their health away.
Just impose by law
>that people should follow education untill they're 16 or 17 years old
>helps but we should also make sure that the educations they follow are
>worthwhile.
Ummm, but we have that in america. Thank you captain idiocy. Do you want to
come to my presidential inaguration? I have the seat of honor reserved for
you.
A bit less heavy science and a bit more social science will
>help IMHO. Especially truths about resource management. We're a
>consumistic society because kids are taught that if they don't have the
>latest video games and sport shoes they're outcasts. Kids are by nature
>uneducated but usually smarter than we expect. Input the right values and
>the output will be utopia. In my experience they will get the point.
Good plan junior. I say let them keep shooting themselves and all we will
have
left are the quickest and the best at surviving.
> The belief about the rotten eggs in the basket is the cause for the bad
>resource management. The belief that if you don't get enough the bad guy
>is going to get it, because he will take whatever he can. It's like a
>cancer, first the dumbasses do it, then the rest will follow
>suit. Humanity is a herding species. If someone panics and runs out of a
>confused situation the rest is likely to follow without other reasons.
True, all those men had no business fighting for women's rights. What
possible
reason could they have had.
>
>> Look at the Poconos. You got bears
>> there. So, these city people (Who frankly would sooner feed a wolf than
>> shoot it) feed the bears out of their houses. Of course, they are
>> repeatedly warned not to, but bears are big cute and fuzzy. So, the
>> bears come back looking for food and go into houses and become
>> dangerous. Of course, this leads to the death of the bear because they
>> will seek out houses no matter where they are placed after this. But
>> that is like killing the symptom. OK, you may have to kill the bear, but
>> lets kill the problem too. After a couple of public executions I am
>> quite sure the hint would sink in to most people. I am sure people don't
>> want the cute bears to die, and they probably don't want them in the
>> house snacking on the kids. I am sure the bears don't want to get shot.
>> Seems like a good solution to all, and it would lessen the population
>> along with thinning out that stupid gene that seems to be running
>> rampant. Ok, maybe the people getting executed and their families might
>> not like it, but it isn't like this was a hard thing to figure out.
> Yeah, it's sad though.
What is sad? Dude, put down the bong.
>
>> How about if you are 14 and have a baby it is time to fix the happy
>> couple. It isn't like we want these goofballs, who can't figure out how
>> to purchase some birth control, mucking up our gene pool.
> 14 is young but 16 physically is the ideal age to kick a few cubs into
>the world. Those kids are generally healthier smarter and prettier. The
>only problem is that a 16 year old is hardly ready to raise kids, they're
>kids themselves. The best age to raise kids is 40 or 50. Where you have
>the energy to physically manage them and the wisdom to teach them. But at
>those ages your biology is degraded to the point where your offspring is
>less healthy less smart and less attractive.
Man, you have no idea about biology.
> The solution is simple, let the 16 year olds get kids and let the
>50 year olds raise them. You're risen by grandma and grandpa, the parents
>are present as half kids half workers and help raising the kids, becoming
>ready to raise their grandchildren.
> Only, that would require a step back from the so valued individuality
>back to a more tribal system. I doubt humanity is ready for that.
Yeah, if someone saddles me with a kid when I am 50 I would be pissed off.
However, give me a good day of wild hot monkey love and I would probably be
a
soar but happy camper. You have the mentality of a wet paper bag.
>
>> How about along with cutting abortion aid to these third world countries
>> we also kill off food and medical aid. Let them starve to death. You
>> want food from us, you stop breeding like rabbits and we will talk.
> Then they will starve. It would be like just telling a dog, push that
>button and get fed, otherwise starve. Most of them wont get it and the few
>that do die with the rest.
> You need to train them...
Fuck training, I am not the world's babysitter. Learn or die, that is the
way
o nature. God what a bunch of panty waisted little fucks you people are.
>
>> Come to think about it, I don't know why I was arguing so hard against
>> drugs. There is a nice western form of population control. Shoot up,
>> smoke crack, hit that joint hard. Kill yourself slow and painful. Man, I
>> don't know you, so who cares. Just means another job opening for someone
>> who would rather work for their happiness. Have a nice flight, tootles
>> :)
> Lol, I wish you would have come to that conclusion earlier. Let
>evolution sort it out. We'll see what happens. Lets not argue the fact
>that people have used drugs for longer than people can write. Maybe 100
>times longer. All the way back to that vague period where you don't know
>if you're talking about animals or humans.
I can see that their advancement as a species reflects this.
>
>Willow
You misspelled retard.
Ben Goodridge
> But that's jsut the problem. Some regulations don't vary! Big government
> has stepped in in the past 8 years to interject themselves where they
aren't
> needed. Federal laws get proposed,a ndoften passed, that regulate
> resources on a national level. Many times these regulations are not
> what is wanted or needed for every area. Many decisions need to be
> left to the people who live there.
Well, then, the current administration should make you happy. G.W. Bush has
done everything in his power to throw ecological preservation legislation
into full retreat, and one of the first things to go into the bin was
Clinton's "no-roads" policy. In Maine, the only people this made happy were
a handful of loggers who had access to those lands--most of the rest of the
state, including the recreational users, went "WHAT??"
Using "communist" as an epithet is dangerous, because it's provoking, not
because it's based on any sort of factual obligation. Isn't California
currently ruled by right-wing Republican Gray Davis, and was previously
ruled by such "communists" as Pete Wilson, responsible for the gutting of
Affirmative Action, Ronald Reagan, responsible for...well, everything...and
is also the home of Orange County (the single wealthiest county in the
country), John Wayne, and most of the Watergate conspirators including the
late Richard Nixon? Aren't most left-wing Californians like Jerry Brown and
Jim Hightower pretty much ineffectual cliche-spouters or apologists? That
sounds more like a state where socialism has been neutered.
"Communist" became a dirty word at the turn of the last century because
moderate socialism got in the way of wealthy people becoming wealthier; the
words of Karl Marx were listened to because he had the radical notion that
employees had rights, which wasn't something corporations wanted people to
hear. It became an even dirtier word during the McCarthy era, so that at
this point "communism" has come to be applied to pretty much any law that
the speaker doesn't happen to like, whether the law is actually Communist in
nature or not. Politician you don't agree with? Communist. Law you don't
like? Communist. Regulation getting in the way of your right to make money
hurting people? Red as a pepper.
The bizarre thing about calling ecological laws "communist" is that the
opposite seems to be true. Chernobyl didn't blow up because it was
OVERLY-regulated, it blew up because it was radically UNDERregulated. When
the Iron Curtain went up and the Soviet Union collapsed and all those Balkan
countries started falling apart, what we here in the west finally got a look
at was a bunch of tiny little alphabet-soup regions experiencing the highest
level of economic and ecological devastation in the world. They'd worked the
land like a slave, and eventually, of course, the slave rebelled. The legacy
of Communism is tapped-out mineral mines, exhausted oil fields,
cheek-by-jowl housing, toxic waste, immunodeficiency diseases, shitty
schools, crappy pay levels, high birth rates, low life expectancies--which,
and I don't know if you've noticed or not, is exactly what the legacy of
Capitalism will be if allowed to run amok. A handful of super-rich,
ultra-empowered fat cats sitting on the broken lives and broken land that
they wrung to make them rich. You don't see a parallel?
The second problem with using Communism as an epithet is that Communism has
come to be synonymous with Totalitarianism. Communism isn't a government
system, it's an economic system. The opposite of "communism" is not
"democracy." The opposite of "communism" is "capitalism;" the opposite of
"democracy" is "totalitarianism." That unrestrained Communism comes to the
same dirty end as unrestrained Capitalism--the complete collapse of the
economic system under its own topheaviness--is the tragedy of extremism.
If California had become a Communist state, then if I were you, I'd be
happy--you're soon to enjoy 100% employment, 100% literacy, free medical
care--and the complete and utter annihilation of every ecological protection
erected since Teddy established the Parks system, rampaging industry in
every pristine corner you like to dirtbike in, rivers of toxic effluvium,
salmonella, E-coli, and trichinosis sold over the counter at your local
supermarket, enough heavy metal in the groundwater to front for Queensryche,
and the eventual detonation of your local atom-smasher. You'd be free to
ride your dirt-bike over a mercury-infested trail paved with California
condor carcasses if you wanted to.
> But that's jsut it. IF someone doesn't like ORV's (Off road vehicles) in
> a specific area, all tehy have to do is find one single species of plant
> or aimal tha tmightbe affected, and go into litigation claiming there
> is an impact. Then the TAXPAYERS foot the bill for an actual
> enviornmental impact study. The studys usually turn up some form
> of native grass, or plant that helps stop erosion. Then all tey have to
do
> is show photos of a trail. ANY trail, nto even an ORV trail, in that
> area, where the plant is nto growing,a nd soil is eroding from use,
> and BLAMO! The whole place gets shut down!
Um...that actually sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
I have to assume that you use your dirtbike largely for recreation.
Recreation is a fairly low priority when it comes to species survival.
Let's pretend for a moment that you're right. If what you say is true, then
the worst--the absolute worst, the most scurrilous crime that can be
committed, the most horrific tragedy that you face--is that you lose a few
thousand acres to go dirt-biking in. Boo hoo.
Now let's pretend for a moment that you're wrong. Now the worst--the
absolute worst--that can happen is the absolute annihilation of a habitat
and the devastation of a fragile and enormously valuable ecosystem that
wasn't even around long enough for us to catalog, much less study.
Now, just to ram that point firmly into the ground, I was wondering if you'd
ever seen a popular aerial photo of Old Orchard Beach, circa 1965. I doubt
it. Even I can hardly ever find it. If you see this photo of Old Orchard
Beach, and you're familiar with Old Orchard Beach, one of the first things
you'll wonder is why in the 1965 photo the town hall is two blocks further
back from the ocean than it is in the 1995 photo.
This is my tying in the regulations you despise with the problems you fear.
The answer is that the town hall hasn't moved; the sea moved. It moved in
and eroded two whole streets, sucking all the homes and shops down one by
one over the past thirty years.
I think you can imagine that the beach did not erode under the weight of the
REGULATIONS on it. It eroded under the weight of the TOURISTS on it. After
killing off all the dune grass with their dirt buggies, there wasn't
anything holding the sand in place. As the sands shifted, the soils further
back also shifted, and the houses started to fall down. Building boardwalks,
banning walking on some parts of the beach, the construction of some
shrewdly-placed retaining walls, and banning motor vehicles on the sand
(with the exception of those used by the disabled for mobility) brought the
erosion to a halt.
So just so that I'm absolutely clear here--you have an erosion problem, and
you think the solution is FEWER regulations. What, you think if you ride
your bike a few times around and around your home it'll pack down the
crumbling embankment it's teetering on?
> Did you know that someone actually found something endangered
> in the empire desert, and now it's getting closed off to ORVs!
> The empire desert is MILES and MILES of nothig but sand dunes,
> with a few patches of grass here and there, mostly around the edges.
If you think there's "nothing" in the desert that needs or deserves
protection from off-roaders, I can loan you a few books. I think one of us
needs to do his homework. Desert environments are among the MOST fragile,
because the evolutionary competition is so stiff. The last thing they need
is more problems. The "patches of grass" just seem hardy because they work
so hard to survive.
> If someone wants to, they can find enviornmental impact anywhere
> they look, no matter how miniscule, it's always there. It's called
> CHANGE, and CHANGE is what keeps us all alive, the earth
> turning,a nd trees growing.
And Rush Limbaugh said, "If the spotted owl can't adapt to the timber
industry, screw it!" On the other hand, everyone from Henry David Thoreau to
the Australian Aborigines can offer you similar advice on how to ensure that
land is protected for future generations: walk softly on it. Whether your
bumper strip reads "Live each day simply and deliberately" or "take only
pictures and leave only footprints," neither one of those sentiments is
compatible with an off-road vehicle.
Ben Goodridge
bgoo...@maine.rr.com
www.animal-man.com
Bryan Manternach
> Bryan Manternach <sm...@sgi.com> wrote in message
> news:3ADD8920...@sgi.com...
>
> > But that's jsut the problem. Some regulations don't vary! Big government
> > has stepped in in the past 8 years to interject themselves where they
> aren't
> > needed. Federal laws get proposed,a ndoften passed, that regulate
> > resources on a national level. Many times these regulations are not
> > what is wanted or needed for every area. Many decisions need to be
> > left to the people who live there.
>
> Well, then, the current administration should make you happy. G.W. Bush has
> done everything in his power to throw ecological preservation legislation
> into full retreat, and one of the first things to go into the bin was
> Clinton's "no-roads" policy. In Maine, the only people this made happy were
> a handful of loggers who had access to those lands--most of the rest of the
> state, including the recreational users, went "WHAT??"
Yes, and out west, we al went "Yay!!"... In the past, public lands
have been considered "Open unless posted closed." ... The new proposal
called for an audit of all *inventoried* roads, and trails. Anything
that didn't make the inventory (ABout 70% of the trails out west)
didn't even get considered, and are "closed"... Then they would
evaluate the remaining stuff in the inventory, and alot a few for
ORV use, mostly non-fun perfectly straight, wide gravel service
roads, and then every bit of land would be considered "Closed, unless
posted open" Which would be fine, if more were open to use
than a small fraction.
Yes, some people have abused the "Open unless posted closed"
policy for YEARS. But punishing everyone for the actions
of a few idiots is just not right. I can't self-police rednecks on
quad-runners without helmets, drinking six-packs, and
tearing up fragile landscape any more than I can netcop
Kamatu, or Safari. It would be like re-organizing Usenet
so everything was supposed to be "moderated"... "Closed unless
opened by a moderator"
> The second problem with using Communism as an epithet is that Communism has
> come to be synonymous with Totalitarianism. Communism isn't a government
> system, it's an economic system. The opposite of "communism" is not
> "democracy." The opposite of "communism" is "capitalism;" the opposite of
> "democracy" is "totalitarianism." That unrestrained Communism comes to the
> same dirty end as unrestrained Capitalism--the complete collapse of the
> economic system under its own topheaviness--is the tragedy of extremism.
And it almost has!
> If California had become a Communist state, then if I were you, I'd be
> happy--you're soon to enjoy 100% employment
Almot got that here!
> , 100% literacy, free medical
> care--and the complete and utter annihilation of every ecological protection
> erected since Teddy established the Parks system, rampaging industry in
> every pristine corner you like to dirtbike in, rivers of toxic effluvium,
> salmonella, E-coli, and trichinosis sold over the counter at your local
> supermarket, enough heavy metal in the groundwater to front for Queensryche,
> and the eventual detonation of your local atom-smasher. You'd be free to
> ride your dirt-bike over a mercury-infested trail paved with California
> condor carcasses if you wanted to.
Almos thave that here. They have ORV parks. They've set aside the
nastiest places to let us ride. Yes, it's quite beautiful sometimes,
until you find out that you ar eriding on a superfund site, or
in one case 100,000 square acres of exposed naturally occouring
asbestos, that pretty much IS the dust you breathe when you ride there.
Everyoen thinks Clear Creek BLM land is the best place to go,
until they have been there, and you remind themof how many
lungfulls of asbestos dust they jsut breathed in. Or how about
riding on sand dunes near the ocean that used to be a military
firing range, still contaminated with the lead,and whatever other
junk they were firing. We do use depleated unranium, and other
radioactive waste in the amunition we fire at enemies in the
middle east. It's probably buried inthose dunes, along with
the lead, and arsenic they found there already.
> > But that's jsut it. IF someone doesn't like ORV's (Off road vehicles) in
> > a specific area, all tehy have to do is find one single species of plant
> > or aimal tha tmightbe affected, and go into litigation claiming there
> > is an impact. Then the TAXPAYERS foot the bill for an actual
> > enviornmental impact study. The studys usually turn up some form
> > of native grass, or plant that helps stop erosion. Then all tey have to
> do
> > is show photos of a trail. ANY trail, nto even an ORV trail, in that
> > area, where the plant is nto growing,a nd soil is eroding from use,
> > and BLAMO! The whole place gets shut down!
>
> Um...that actually sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
>
> I have to assume that you use your dirtbike largely for recreation.
> Recreation is a fairly low priority when it comes to species survival.
When the species isn't native to the area? How about when
trail workers planted it there as part of their own erosion control
program?
> Let's pretend for a moment that you're right. If what you say is true, then
> the worst--the absolute worst, the most scurrilous crime that can be
> committed, the most horrific tragedy that you face--is that you lose a few
> thousand acres to go dirt-biking in. Boo hoo.
Nope. There you are wrong. I lose EVERY place to ride. The
thing is, with most of the state completely empty,and vacant land,
it's also mostly closed off already. We ahve very few places to
go anymore. Ilive inthe middle of a mountain range with
literally hundreds of miles of logging roads, and trails. Every last one
of them is off-limits to me. I can't even go on LOGGING ROADS
legally. It's in the middle of nowhere, so it's unlikely I'd get
caught because there are like 20 park rangers for half a million
square miles, but it's the thought that counts.
Everyone out here is litigous. SO all property is posted closed. I have to
drive HOURS out of town before I get to open public lands,
and now THOSE are in danger of being closed by actions
likethe roadless initiative. And most of america is content
never leaving the city, so tey figure "Ahh, that's in the middle
of nowhere, what do I care." SO they smile, nod, and vote
for the action to close the land. Not considering that someone
actually likes to go there.
I especially liek the woman in the sierras who walks into the
middle of atrail, DURING the enduro, even wheen the flagger
is standing right there, warning her to watchout for the bikes,
and then tries to sue because the trail's use endangered her life.
Nevermind the fact that the trail was cut specificly for the race,
to keep the race separate from the public use trails.
Then she takes photos of the water bars that were isntalled
for erosioncontrol, and the on-camber cut into an off-camber
hill, made for safety, and get the picture of her there in front
of the finely groomed,a nd painstakingly maintained trail,
plastered all over the newspapers. The picture caption says
someting to the effect that it is all erosion, which is not the
case, it was actually a bobcat that plowedthe level trail,
and hundreds of hard working hands installed the water
bars with shovels, and days of effort. But she is made to
be the victim, and the underdog.
She complains about the race invading her home. Yet
she moved there only a few years ago fromteh big city,and
knew about the race to begin with. The race brings thousands
of people intot he nearby town, and is a HUGE boost to the
town economy that USED to thrive on the lumber industry.
And now she is unermining that industry. SO many people
in her own town dislike her tactics, but to the rest of the
world, SHE is he the hero, regardless of what her neighbors think.
What would you rather have? A lumber company cutting the
trees, or Pepsi, and Sony sponsoring races on the trails through
those trees? Either way, your town makes money. Chose
your poison.
> Now let's pretend for a moment that you're wrong. Now the worst--the
> absolute worst--that can happen is the absolute annihilation of a habitat
> and the devastation of a fragile and enormously valuable ecosystem that
> wasn't even around long enough for us to catalog, much less study.
These lands sit untouched for decades. When someone touches them,
peole scream in the defense of biodiversity. IF it was so fucking
important, why wasn't it evaluated decades ago. In most cases, the
problem isn't about that at all. Someone doesn't like bikers, or
horseback riders ont heir trail, so they scream biodiversity!
The land, and it's inhabitants aren't evaluated until someone who
doesn't like the use of the land calls for an EIR (Enviornmental
Impact Report.) The problem with an EIR is that no matter how you
do the report, there is always some effect people have on the land.
Even walking on it to do the report, you are imapcting the
species there. then tey use the evil term "mitigate" and state
that damage can be "mitigated" by limiting activities there to
pedestrian traffic.
My friend, footprints stomp jsut as much of a trail as horseshoes, and
knobby tires. In fact, I bet I can carve a much narrower, less-
impacting trail with my wheels than a hundred hikers would
do to a trail in a week. Foot trails are ALWAYS wide. The
nice thing about riding trails is that most of them are "single
track" nice narrow lines that could be mistaken for cattle
trails out here in the west.
> Now, just to ram that point firmly into the ground, I was wondering if you'd
> ever seen a popular aerial photo of Old Orchard Beach, circa 1965. I doubt
> it. Even I can hardly ever find it. If you see this photo of Old Orchard
> Beach, and you're familiar with Old Orchard Beach, one of the first things
> you'll wonder is why in the 1965 photo the town hall is two blocks further
> back from the ocean than it is in the 1995 photo.
>><<
> So just so that I'm absolutely clear here--you have an erosion problem, and
> you think the solution is FEWER regulations. What, you think if you ride
> your bike a few times around and around your home it'll pack down the
> crumbling embankment it's teetering on?
I'm not stupid, and ignorant like you are making me out to be.
You are jsut like everyone else. I don't ride on the crumbling
embankment my house teeters on. I only ride where I am allowed to
ride, on responsibly maintained, and responsibly routed trails.
I even help maintain those trails with my own two hands, and
a lot of sweat.
My bitch is that eventhose places we've worked so hard to preserve
are being taken away from us by people who never go there, and will
never go there, and who have no idea what they are voting for.
We're out of space, and out of time.
> If you think there's "nothing" in the desert that needs or deserves
> protection from off-roaders, I can loan you a few books. I think one of us
> needs to do his homework. Desert environments are among the MOST fragile,
> because the evolutionary competition is so stiff. The last thing they need
> is more problems. The "patches of grass" just seem hardy because they work
> so hard to survive.
Yes, and there is MILLIONS of miles of sand and desert. We're
segregated to one small part of it, instead of spreading the impact out
over a larger area with less of a chance of having a major impact,
everyone gets crammed into one part, and then enviornmentalists
wonder why that place is being destroyed! If they'd let us
go everywhere, there would probably be a LOT more grass
onthe empire desert finges, and less endangered species there.
Ok. Sake of example. YOu have a patch of dry grass.
Sunlight on the grass is fine, but concentrate the sunlight on one
spot with a magnifying glass, and the grass in that one
spot is destroyed. It looks a lot uglier than the whole
remaining patch of grass does under the sunlight.
Enviornmentalists forced, and coraled us into these small
tracts of land, and now they screa that we're destroying them!
Imagine if you took all the hikers from the appalachain
mountains trail from one year of use,and concentrated them
all on 5 miles of trail in a single 1500 acre tract of land.
That land would be absolutely TRAMPLED to death, and
destroyed in a matter of weeks.
> And Rush Limbaugh said, "If the spotted owl can't adapt to the timber
> industry, screw it!" On the other hand, everyone from Henry David Thoreau to
> the Australian Aborigines can offer you similar advice on how to ensure that
> land is protected for future generations: walk softly on it. Whether your
> bumper strip reads "Live each day simply and deliberately" or "take only
> pictures and leave only footprints," neither one of those sentiments is
> compatible with an off-road vehicle.
You definately are ignorant. My bumper sticker reads "Tread lightly"
Go to http://sharetrails.org/mag/mission.htm , http://sharetrails.org/policies.htm
and figure it out for yourself.
Bryan Manternach
> Nothing new there, O Smash. Bear in mind that nature's killed a lot more
> houses than that ... between Tornado Alley, the San Andreas Fault, the
> slipping sands of Malibu, and live volcanoes, good old Mother Nature makes a
> great homewrecker.
Yer telling me. I live 10 miles fromthat fault line, cross it going to
work every day, along with dozens of others. Aside from redwood
trees falling on my house in a mudslide, I have earthquakes, and
earthquakes starting landslides to worry about. Then I have this
river eroding the bank. The earth out here changes fast. Faster
than people and their rules can keep up. Entire roads wash out
before anyone can cut through red tape, and installerosion control.
On one hand you aren't allowed to interfere with nature. Then
when the road washes out, emergency services are affected, and
we spend 10x as much money fixing the road than we would
have installing a retaining wall.. ANd of course, and earthquake
may just knock it down again anyhow.
> What Coyote's pointing out, though, is that, by comparison, we mostly get
> off easy. Your neighbor's house may perish, but he can move.
Yeah, into a homeless shelter. The local economy, and demand for housing
has shot land prices through the roof. He is one of many people who
will have to move out of state because they can barely afford land tax
on the .25 acres they currently have, let alone buying a new home.
I saw a rotting shack nearby, and thought I could maybe afford
to buy a fixer-upper. But I later fond out that the shack on the
ugly lot would cost me 2.6 million dollars, AND I'd be near
a highway. 2.6 million for a .335 acre parcel! 2 doors down from
me, there is a 640 square foot single bedroom house on .24 acres,
selling for $275K. Out on a back road, I found a 400 sq foot
MOBILE HOME, sitting on a steep hillside on a 1/5 acre parcel
for $99,500....
No, my neighbor can't afford to move. He doesn't make
six figures. he's not in the computer industry. He'll be driven
out just like everyone else who grew up here.
> You'll be
> moving away from the erosion as well. But wolves, bears, panthers and such
> have a *very* limited choice of places to live ... not just wilderness, but
> the right kind of wilderness, and enough of it.
So do we. We need a place to build a house, and there isn't much
land around here that is flat enough. Oh, did I mention that
most houses are "grandfathered" in to code? Yeah. Most places
are deemed "unbuildable" You cna't build on a hillside, or
a river bank anymore. Even if the riverbank is the only place
with a shallow enough of a grade to build on for miles. (to
meet the grade rrequirments set for th inthe building code.)
If my house fell down, my landlord would not be able to
rebuild it, and nobody would by the lot. OF course, that
makes it impossible to get insurance on the house, let
alone renter's insurance for myself.
> >That's a very ignoprant thing to say. In areas like this, the terrain is
> >incredibly steep, and the only places not too steep to build on are
> >near waterways, and beaches. Everything else is steep slopes,
> >and rocky cliffs.
>
> <blink> I take it you've never heard of the mountain cabins built on
> 60-degree slopes? Stilt houses built on the water? There are more options
> for housebuilding than the flat clearing ... they just take a little more
> work and cleverness.
And they are not allowed here. You think building on a riverbank is
a problem. Building a house IN the river would drive the
local enviornmentalists CRAZY. The mountain cabins on 60
degree slopes *IS* where i live now. They are now illegal to
build, and existing ones are grandfathered in.
Pretty soon, it'll be illegal to live in anything but a
sterile apartment complex in the city. We'll all be
neatly filed away like papers in a filing cabinet, out
of sight, and out of mind.
> And there's always a way to rebuild and recover. It may be unpleasant, it
> may take years ... but, judging from the fact that even some homeless people
> really do get homes again, I'd say it happens.
I am stuck with thsi shithole. If I want to keepmy job, I have to
stay here. Californians are VERY used to rebuilding and recovering
from natural disaster. But because of the laws, every time
soemthing does happen, there are less places to rebuild.
I make a fuckload of money. I have none of it to show.
It's all spent on high rents. If I kept this salary, and
lived in Ohio, I could literally buy a mansion,
hundreds of acres, hire a butler, and have someone
drive me around in a limousine.
Yet all I can afford is a shotgun shack in the woods
out here. IT's fucking insane, and it's all because of
the dot.com boom out here. I can't wait for the stock
market to collapse, and take this internet market
with it. then maybe I'll be able to buy myself
a real home. All I want is a home of my own.
But if I go someplace I can afford it, I can't find
a job there, and I can't do my job remotely enough
to telecommute.
> The problem, O Smash, is that people, whether they be blue-collar workers or
> white-collar CEOs, do not care to be dictated to in any way.
>
> Allow me to draw a parallel:
>
> Let's take Kamatu and Safari as polluters in the biosphere of
> alt.horror.werewolves. The rest of us make up the EPA.
Irrelevant paralell, because in the biosphere of AHWW,
there is absolutely no means of the "EPA" enforcing
anything. There is no way you can punish them, or
get them off the net.
Unless you are suggesting that we collect taxes, and form
an UseNet EPA , and then a UnseNetCop hit-squad,
and send them out into the real world to cut Kamatu,
and Safari's phone/DSL lines?
> Fine them: Not a bad idea. Unfortunately, we have just as much power to
> enforce fines as the real EPA does ... not much. (The EPA doesn't collect
> very often, no.)
Yes, but other governmental agencies can,a nd do. We have separation
of the governmental branches. A Judicial branch agency,
like a law enforcement agency will be the ones enforcing laws
that might have been influenced by EPA mandates, and
concerns.
> Arrest them?: Not gonna happen. Like the EPA, we don't have legal
> authority to arrest someone for polluting ... especially since the law
> states that pollution crimes are to be referred to the EPA, rather than the
> courts at large.
Crock 'o' shit. The police will arrest them, and charge them with
violations of actual laws. Then the courts will judge them.
To borrow from a BASF commecial:
"At the EPA we don't make the laws laws you break. We make the laws
you break more enviornmentally impactful!"
> When dealing with a company that is willing to co-operate and comply, the
> EPA can get things done. With those who refuse to comply, it's like getting
> gnawed on by a week-old kitten; not only harmless, but amusing for the
> target.
Unless they really violate a law. Then it's tied up in litigation.
Did you flunk social science in gradeschool? EPA is not a judicial
branch agency! It's the executive branch, actually... It has no
means to enforce laws, or even make them! The EPA
merely determines enviornmental impact, and acts as the
voice of teh enviornment when bills, and laws are proposed
in legislature that may have an enviornmental impact.
Willow
> >fucks up dies. If the wrong person fucks up, we all die. I share your
> >belief. Humanity is an infant with great potential...
>
> Wow, talk about your overreactions. Silly type person, it is nothing lie
> that.
> One person can fuck up and we all do not die. What a dumb ass statement. If
> that were true it would be legal to kill you before your extinct us all. My
> life in the hands of a pothead, now that is scary.
> BTW shouldn't you be posting as moonchild now?
people from holland can post on one newsgroup? There are 16 million of us
you know....
DOH Dumbass :)
> > If today we all decide to fix the hunger problem, next week it is
> >done. Just cancel mac donalds and send the food they consume to where it
> >is needed... Seriously. The amount of resources needed to bake a burger is
> >incredible.. One person living only of mac donalds burgers consumes about
> >10 times the resources he needs.
>
> I used to work at Mcdonalds. I think you are a tad silly. I was able to
> prepare food for a busload of people within mere minutes. seems to me to be
> a
> pretty good use of resources.
Lol, from your own little niche in the world you got it all figured out
huh? What did you get paid? Was that halfway enough? Were you in a
union? Where does all the burger money go?
> > Yeah, well, that new age has been in the making for uhm ages. If it
> >arrives it wont arrive too soon.... :(
> > Still we see some good things evolving I hope there is time.
> Well, the intelligent have to work harder because some people like to smoke
> themselves retarded.
And some of us never had a brain to start with huh?
> >> You know what I don't like. I don't like the fact that we can't start
> >> enforcing intelligence on people.
> > We can, it's simple, not by laws, but by education.
> I guess truancy isn't a word in the netherlands. It probably isn't a
> concern,
> if I could have smoked up in class I probably would have gone to class more
> also.
I followed them all, so now I am in university,..... You worked at mac
donalds. Now I don't give a shit about that. But please stop calling me
dumb okay?
> Education and health
> >care should be the highest priorities of a society.
>
> Health care? did you read my post? Do you think I want to pay for a
> pothead's
> iron lung? Let em die, more resources for the rest of us, and more doctors
> for peope who didn't chose to smoke their health away.
Would you pay for job accidents? Criminal victims? Healthcare...
> Just impose by law
> >that people should follow education untill they're 16 or 17 years old
> >helps but we should also make sure that the educations they follow are
> >worthwhile.
>
> Ummm, but we have that in america. Thank you captain idiocy. Do you want to
> come to my presidential inaguration? I have the seat of honor reserved for
> you.
Yes? Are the educations worthwhile in the US? Wow really?
> >> Look at the Poconos. You got bears
> >> there. So, these city people (Who frankly would sooner feed a wolf than
> >> shoot it) feed the bears out of their houses. Of course, they are
> >> repeatedly warned not to, but bears are big cute and fuzzy. So, the
> >> bears come back looking for food and go into houses and become
> >> dangerous. Of course, this leads to the death of the bear because they
> >> will seek out houses no matter where they are placed after this. But
> >> that is like killing the symptom. OK, you may have to kill the bear, but
> >> lets kill the problem too. After a couple of public executions I am
> >> quite sure the hint would sink in to most people. I am sure people don't
> >> want the cute bears to die, and they probably don't want them in the
> >> house snacking on the kids. I am sure the bears don't want to get shot.
> >> Seems like a good solution to all, and it would lessen the population
> >> along with thinning out that stupid gene that seems to be running
> >> rampant. Ok, maybe the people getting executed and their families might
> >> not like it, but it isn't like this was a hard thing to figure out.
> > Yeah, it's sad though.
>
> What is sad? Dude, put down the bong.
That they kill the bears for crimes mankind commits. Its hard to agree
with you, you don't want people to.
> >> How about if you are 14 and have a baby it is time to fix the happy
> >> couple. It isn't like we want these goofballs, who can't figure out how
> >> to purchase some birth control, mucking up our gene pool.
> > 14 is young but 16 physically is the ideal age to kick a few cubs into
> >the world. Those kids are generally healthier smarter and prettier. The
> >only problem is that a 16 year old is hardly ready to raise kids, they're
> >kids themselves. The best age to raise kids is 40 or 50. Where you have
> >the energy to physically manage them and the wisdom to teach them. But at
> >those ages your biology is degraded to the point where your offspring is
> >less healthy less smart and less attractive.
> Man, you have no idea about biology.
No? Have you?
Where did you learn?
> > The solution is simple, let the 16 year olds get kids and let the
> >50 year olds raise them. You're risen by grandma and grandpa, the parents
> >are present as half kids half workers and help raising the kids, becoming
> >ready to raise their grandchildren.
> > Only, that would require a step back from the so valued individuality
> >back to a more tribal system. I doubt humanity is ready for that.
>
> Yeah, if someone saddles me with a kid when I am 50 I would be pissed off.
> However, give me a good day of wild hot monkey love and I would probably be
> a soar but happy camper. You have the mentality of a wet paper bag.
If my kid gets pregnant at 16 I will be sure that my grandchild gets a
good childhood. No matter what the cost. I'd raise them myself if my kid
lets me.
A kid is a kid, you take care of it.
> >> How about along with cutting abortion aid to these third world countries
> >> we also kill off food and medical aid. Let them starve to death. You
> >> want food from us, you stop breeding like rabbits and we will talk.
> > Then they will starve. It would be like just telling a dog, push that
> >button and get fed, otherwise starve. Most of them wont get it and the few
> >that do die with the rest.
> > You need to train them...
>
> Fuck training, I am not the world's babysitter. Learn or die, that is the
> way o nature. God what a bunch of panty waisted little fucks you people are.
There were more people thinking like you. They believed in
eugenetics. Which kind of came down to let evolution sort it out, if
someone is poor it is his own fault, if someone is sick then they should
die to make room for the healthy. Nazism was started along those
lines. Eliminate the weaker species.
> >> Come to think about it, I don't know why I was arguing so hard against
> >> drugs. There is a nice western form of population control. Shoot up,
> >> smoke crack, hit that joint hard. Kill yourself slow and painful. Man, I
> >> don't know you, so who cares. Just means another job opening for someone
> >> who would rather work for their happiness. Have a nice flight, tootles
> >> :)
> > Lol, I wish you would have come to that conclusion earlier. Let
> >evolution sort it out. We'll see what happens. Lets not argue the fact
> >that people have used drugs for longer than people can write. Maybe 100
> >times longer. All the way back to that vague period where you don't know
> >if you're talking about animals or humans.
>
> I can see that their advancement as a species reflects this.
> >Willow
> You misspelled retard.
Man, this is childish.
Willow
Kamatu
"Willow" <were...@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.01042...@willow.jvb.tudelft.nl...
Yea. Nazism finally got mentioned.
However, dumbass, Hitler's plan was not to "destroy the weaker species" by
killing off the Jews.
If you can't read your history books properly, maybe yuo should not be
smoking so much pot in school?
> > >> Come to think about it, I don't know why I was arguing so hard
against
> > >> drugs. There is a nice western form of population control. Shoot up,
> > >> smoke crack, hit that joint hard. Kill yourself slow and painful.
Man, I
> > >> don't know you, so who cares. Just means another job opening for
someone
> > >> who would rather work for their happiness. Have a nice flight,
tootles
> > >> :)
> > > Lol, I wish you would have come to that conclusion earlier. Let
> > >evolution sort it out. We'll see what happens. Lets not argue the fact
> > >that people have used drugs for longer than people can write. Maybe 100
> > >times longer. All the way back to that vague period where you don't
know
> > >if you're talking about animals or humans.
> >
> > I can see that their advancement as a species reflects this.
>
> > >Willow
> > You misspelled retard.
> Man, this is childish.
And you just keep on going.
>
> Willow
>
Princess Safari
>> >fucks up dies. If the wrong person fucks up, we all die. I share your
>> >belief. Humanity is an infant with great potential...
>>
>> Wow, talk about your overreactions. Silly type person, it is nothing lie
>> that.
>> One person can fuck up and we all do not die. What a dumb ass statement. If
>> that were true it would be legal to kill you before your extinct us all. My
>> life in the hands of a pothead, now that is scary.
> Can't you think of one person that should not fuck up?
No. I also can't think of one perfect person aside from myself, so I guess
everyone fucks up (Aside from me of course) at one time or another and we
are
all still here. Nice point, too bad it was so retarded.
>
>> BTW shouldn't you be posting as moonchild now?
> And I am the moron? :)
yes, and the fact that you would have to ask such a question illustrates it
so
well.
You have such a hard time imagining that two
>people from holland can post on one newsgroup?
I hope there aren't 2 people from your country so inherently stupid that
happened to stumble onto this group. It might be a big coincidence, but I
think it would speak volumes about the demographics of intelligent people
from
your country.
There are 16 million of us
>you know....
Yeah, there are that many people and more in NY. Do you have a point? I was
giving your country credit for having only one person who smoked themselves
retarded, I guess that was too much credit.
> DOH Dumbass :)
Yup, I'm sure
>
>
>> > If today we all decide to fix the hunger problem, next week it is
>> >done. Just cancel mac donalds and send the food they consume to where it
>> >is needed... Seriously. The amount of resources needed to bake a burger is
>> >incredible.. One person living only of mac donalds burgers consumes about
>> >10 times the resources he needs.
>>
>> I used to work at Mcdonalds. I think you are a tad silly. I was able to
>> prepare food for a busload of people within mere minutes. seems to me to be
>> a
>> pretty good use of resources.
> Lol, from your own little niche in the world you got it all figured out
>huh?
yes, your point?
>What did you get paid?
6 dollars an hour. Even the pay sucked ass. God, cheap quick manufacturing
of
inexpensive food. You did have a point here, right?
>Was that halfway enough?
Lets see, burgers made mostly of by products and filler. They can be sold
with
profit for 99 cents, which means that they don't cost nearly that much to
make, package, ship, and even add in construction of restaurants. You can
pay
someone 6 dollars an hour and they can feed a bus load off people on their
own
within an hour. Heck, if it was third world you really wouldn't even need to
package the food. McDonalds is a very good example of efficient and low cost
use of resources, along with quick and easy manufacturing and distribution.
You really need to look at the things you are talking about instad of just
spitting out knee jerk reactions because you think fast food is beneath you.
Were you in a
>union?
No, but I am sure paying some bloated politician some of the pittance of pay
I
got would have been a efficient use of resources.
>Where does all the burger money go?
You can't even stick to your own points. Please, I will answer this when you
tell me where your point went?
>
>> > Yeah, well, that new age has been in the making for uhm ages. If it
>> >arrives it wont arrive too soon.... :(
>> > Still we see some good things evolving I hope there is time.
>
>> Well, the intelligent have to work harder because some people like to smoke
>> themselves retarded.
> And some of us never had a brain to start with huh?
So you were born this stupid. Do you have a point?
>
>> >> You know what I don't like. I don't like the fact that we can't start
>> >> enforcing intelligence on people.
>> > We can, it's simple, not by laws, but by education.
>
>> I guess truancy isn't a word in the netherlands. It probably isn't a
>> concern,
>> if I could have smoked up in class I probably would have gone to class more
>> also.
> I followed them all, so now I am in university,..... You worked at mac
>donalds. Now I don't give a shit about that. But please stop calling me
>dumb okay?
I think I got the jab here. You are saying you are smarter than I am because
I
worked for Mcdonalds over the summer while I was in school? Well now, that
is
good one. However, you seem to have tad bit of trouble reading. Maybe it was
my education from Mcdonalds making me stupid, but you seem to be saying
truancy is not a problem in your country because you went to class? Well,
guess what, people in my school got perfect attendance certificates every
year. That does not mean I never cut class.
>
>> Education and health
>> >care should be the highest priorities of a society.
>>
>> Health care? did you read my post? Do you think I want to pay for a
>> pothead's
>> iron lung? Let em die, more resources for the rest of us, and more doctors
>> for peope who didn't chose to smoke their health away.
> Would you pay for job accidents? Criminal victims? Healthcare...
You must not understand certin words. Tell me which one of the following
words
you do not understand and I will try not to use it anymore.
"for peope who didn't chose to smoke their health away"
Was it people because I misspelled it?
>
>> Just impose by law
>> >that people should follow education untill they're 16 or 17 years old
>> >helps but we should also make sure that the educations they follow are
>> >worthwhile.
>>
>> Ummm, but we have that in america. Thank you captain idiocy. Do you want to
>> come to my presidential inaguration? I have the seat of honor reserved for
>> you.
> Yes? Are the educations worthwhile in the US? Wow really?
We seem to be doing better than holland :) When people ride crowded boats in
horrid conditions for thousands of miles to get to one country that says
something. However, when the reason people vacaion in holand is because they
want to smoke up legally, that says something entirely different. BTW you
can
thank "Pulp Fiction" for your tourism. Most potheads didn't know holland
existed until they saw that movie.
>
>> >> Look at the Poconos. You got bears
>> >> there. So, these city people (Who frankly would sooner feed a wolf than
>> >> shoot it) feed the bears out of their houses. Of course, they are
>> >> repeatedly warned not to, but bears are big cute and fuzzy. So, the
>> >> bears come back looking for food and go into houses and become
>> >> dangerous. Of course, this leads to the death of the bear because they
>> >> will seek out houses no matter where they are placed after this. But
>> >> that is like killing the symptom. OK, you may have to kill the bear, but
>> >> lets kill the problem too. After a couple of public executions I am
>> >> quite sure the hint would sink in to most people. I am sure people don't
>> >> want the cute bears to die, and they probably don't want them in the
>> >> house snacking on the kids. I am sure the bears don't want to get shot.
>> >> Seems like a good solution to all, and it would lessen the population
>> >> along with thinning out that stupid gene that seems to be running
>> >> rampant. Ok, maybe the people getting executed and their families might
>> >> not like it, but it isn't like this was a hard thing to figure out.
>> > Yeah, it's sad though.
>>
>> What is sad? Dude, put down the bong.
> That they kill the bears for crimes mankind commits. Its hard to agree
>with you, you don't want people to.
I would prefer to keep the idiots off my side. You people tend to hurt my
point.
>
>> >> How about if you are 14 and have a baby it is time to fix the happy
>> >> couple. It isn't like we want these goofballs, who can't figure out how
>> >> to purchase some birth control, mucking up our gene pool.
>> > 14 is young but 16 physically is the ideal age to kick a few cubs into
>> >the world. Those kids are generally healthier smarter and prettier. The
>> >only problem is that a 16 year old is hardly ready to raise kids, they're
>> >kids themselves. The best age to raise kids is 40 or 50. Where you have
>> >the energy to physically manage them and the wisdom to teach them. But at
>> >those ages your biology is degraded to the point where your offspring is
>> >less healthy less smart and less attractive.
>
>> Man, you have no idea about biology.
> No? Have you?
Yes.
>
> Where did you learn?
SUNY New Paltz, and Western Conneticut State university. Where did you
learn?
>
>> > The solution is simple, let the 16 year olds get kids and let the
>> >50 year olds raise them. You're risen by grandma and grandpa, the parents
>> >are present as half kids half workers and help raising the kids, becoming
>> >ready to raise their grandchildren.
>> > Only, that would require a step back from the so valued individuality
>> >back to a more tribal system. I doubt humanity is ready for that.
>>
>> Yeah, if someone saddles me with a kid when I am 50 I would be pissed off.
>> However, give me a good day of wild hot monkey love and I would probably be
>> a soar but happy camper. You have the mentality of a wet paper bag.
> If my kid gets pregnant at 16 I will be sure that my grandchild gets a
>good childhood. No matter what the cost. I'd raise them myself if my kid
>lets me.
> A kid is a kid, you take care of it.
Thank you captain charity. I'll be living my life, thank you :) If I choose
to
have a kid, then I would tak care of it. If my daughter chose to fuck and
forgot her birth control she would soon find out the fun of raising a kid
she
was not prepared for. Sure, I would help out, but I have a feeling her
social
life would be massively suffering.
>
>> >> How about along with cutting abortion aid to these third world countries
>> >> we also kill off food and medical aid. Let them starve to death. You
>> >> want food from us, you stop breeding like rabbits and we will talk.
>> > Then they will starve. It would be like just telling a dog, push that
>> >button and get fed, otherwise starve. Most of them wont get it and the few
>> >that do die with the rest.
>> > You need to train them...
>>
>> Fuck training, I am not the world's babysitter. Learn or die, that is the
>> way o nature. God what a bunch of panty waisted little fucks you people
are.
> There were more people thinking like you. They believed in
>eugenetics. Which kind of came down to let evolution sort it out, if
>someone is poor it is his own fault, if someone is sick then they should
>die to make room for the healthy. Nazism was started along those
>lines. Eliminate the weaker species.
YAY! Suck that Kamatu, another Nazi reference. I am so going to be hitler #1
this year. Oh wait, was there a point in there? Was it something like the
dumbass uneducated americans bailed your country's ass out of that little
war?
>> >> Come to think about it, I don't know why I was arguing so hard against
>> >> drugs. There is a nice western form of population control. Shoot up,
>> >> smoke crack, hit that joint hard. Kill yourself slow and painful. Man, I
>> >> don't know you, so who cares. Just means another job opening for someone
>> >> who would rather work for their happiness. Have a nice flight, tootles
>> >> :)
>> > Lol, I wish you would have come to that conclusion earlier. Let
>> >evolution sort it out. We'll see what happens. Lets not argue the fact
>> >that people have used drugs for longer than people can write. Maybe 100
>> >times longer. All the way back to that vague period where you don't know
>> >if you're talking about animals or humans.
>>
>> I can see that their advancement as a species reflects this.
>
>> >Willow
>> You misspelled retard.
> Man, this is childish.
If you want me to argue with you like an adult, put down your bong, sober
up,
and try to use whatever brain cells are still working in that stoned little
head of yours.
>
>Willow
Princess Safari
>that
>> > >fucks up dies. If the wrong person fucks up, we all die. I share your
>> > >belief. Humanity is an infant with great potential...
>> >
>> > Wow, talk about your overreactions. Silly type person, it is nothing lie
>> > that.
>> > One person can fuck up and we all do not die. What a dumb ass statement.
>If
>> > that were true it would be legal to kill you before your extinct us all.
>My
>> > life in the hands of a pothead, now that is scary.
>> Can't you think of one person that should not fuck up?
>>
>> people from holland can post on one newsgroup? There are 16 million of us
>> you know....
>> DOH Dumbass :)
>>
>>
>> > > If today we all decide to fix the hunger problem, next week it is
>> > >done. Just cancel mac donalds and send the food they consume to where
>it
>> > >is needed... Seriously. The amount of resources needed to bake a burger
>is
>> > >incredible.. One person living only of mac donalds burgers consumes
>about
>> > >10 times the resources he needs.
>> >
>> > I used to work at Mcdonalds. I think you are a tad silly. I was able to
>> > prepare food for a busload of people within mere minutes. seems to me to
>be
>> > a
>> > pretty good use of resources.
>> Lol, from your own little niche in the world you got it all figured out
>> union? Where does all the burger money go?
>>
>> > > Yeah, well, that new age has been in the making for uhm ages. If it
>> > >arrives it wont arrive too soon.... :(
>> > > Still we see some good things evolving I hope there is time.
>>
>> > Well, the intelligent have to work harder because some people like to
>smoke
>> > themselves retarded.
>> And some of us never had a brain to start with huh?
>>
>> > >> enforcing intelligence on people.
>> > > We can, it's simple, not by laws, but by education.
>>
>> > I guess truancy isn't a word in the netherlands. It probably isn't a
>> > concern,
>> > if I could have smoked up in class I probably would have gone to class
>more
>> > also.
>> I followed them all, so now I am in university,..... You worked at mac
>> donalds. Now I don't give a shit about that. But please stop calling me
>> dumb okay?
>>
>> > >care should be the highest priorities of a society.
>> >
>> > Health care? did you read my post? Do you think I want to pay for a
>> > pothead's
>> > iron lung? Let em die, more resources for the rest of us, and more
>doctors
>> > for peope who didn't chose to smoke their health away.
>> Would you pay for job accidents? Criminal victims? Healthcare...
>>
>> > >that people should follow education untill they're 16 or 17 years old
>> > >helps but we should also make sure that the educations they follow are
>> > >worthwhile.
>> >
>> > Ummm, but we have that in america. Thank you captain idiocy. Do you want
>to
>> > come to my presidential inaguration? I have the seat of honor reserved
>for
>> > you.
>> Yes? Are the educations worthwhile in the US? Wow really?
>>
>> > >> couple. It isn't like we want these goofballs, who can't figure out
>how
>> > >> to purchase some birth control, mucking up our gene pool.
>> > > 14 is young but 16 physically is the ideal age to kick a few cubs
>into
>> > >the world. Those kids are generally healthier smarter and prettier. The
>> > >only problem is that a 16 year old is hardly ready to raise kids,
>they're
>> > >kids themselves. The best age to raise kids is 40 or 50. Where you have
>> > >the energy to physically manage them and the wisdom to teach them. But
>at
>> > >those ages your biology is degraded to the point where your offspring
>is
>> > >less healthy less smart and less attractive.
>>
>> > Man, you have no idea about biology.
>> No? Have you?
>>
>>
>> > > The solution is simple, let the 16 year olds get kids and let the
>> > >50 year olds raise them. You're risen by grandma and grandpa, the
>parents
>> > >are present as half kids half workers and help raising the kids,
>becoming
>> > >ready to raise their grandchildren.
>> > > Only, that would require a step back from the so valued individuality
>> > >back to a more tribal system. I doubt humanity is ready for that.
>> >
>> > Yeah, if someone saddles me with a kid when I am 50 I would be pissed
>off.
>> > However, give me a good day of wild hot monkey love and I would probably
>be
>> > a soar but happy camper. You have the mentality of a wet paper bag.
>> If my kid gets pregnant at 16 I will be sure that my grandchild gets a
>> good childhood. No matter what the cost. I'd raise them myself if my kid
>> lets me.
>> A kid is a kid, you take care of it.
>>
>countries
>> > >> we also kill off food and medical aid. Let them starve to death. You
>> > >> want food from us, you stop breeding like rabbits and we will talk.
>> > > Then they will starve. It would be like just telling a dog, push that
>> > >button and get fed, otherwise starve. Most of them wont get it and the
>few
>> > >that do die with the rest.
>> > > You need to train them...
>> >
>> > Fuck training, I am not the world's babysitter. Learn or die, that is
>the
>> > way o nature. God what a bunch of panty waisted little fucks you people
>are.
>> There were more people thinking like you. They believed in
>> eugenetics. Which kind of came down to let evolution sort it out, if
>> someone is poor it is his own fault, if someone is sick then they should
>> die to make room for the healthy. Nazism was started along those
>> lines. Eliminate the weaker species.
>>
>
>
>However, dumbass, Hitler's plan was not to "destroy the weaker species" by
>killing off the Jews.
>
>If you can't read your history books properly, maybe yuo should not be
>smoking so much pot in school?
You are just grumpy because I got called a nazi and you didn't :P
>
>
>
>
>> > >> Come to think about it, I don't know why I was arguing so hard
>against
>> > >> drugs. There is a nice western form of population control. Shoot up,
>> > >> smoke crack, hit that joint hard. Kill yourself slow and painful.
>Man, I
>> > >> don't know you, so who cares. Just means another job opening for
>someone
>> > >> who would rather work for their happiness. Have a nice flight,
>tootles
>> > >> :)
>> > > Lol, I wish you would have come to that conclusion earlier. Let
>> > >evolution sort it out. We'll see what happens. Lets not argue the fact
>> > >that people have used drugs for longer than people can write. Maybe 100
>> > >times longer. All the way back to that vague period where you don't
>know
>> > >if you're talking about animals or humans.
>> >
>> > I can see that their advancement as a species reflects this.
>>
>> > >Willow
>> > You misspelled retard.
>> Man, this is childish.
>And you just keep on going.
Pot heads with no jobs who take five years to write their thesis tend to
have
a lot of time.
Kamatu
"Princess Safari" <princes...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B00...@MailAndNews.com...
It did sting a little, but I would rather if people were gonna throw
Adolph's name around they at least knew what his plan really was.
--
barbara turner/ moonwolf
> age to kick a few cubs into the world.
> Those kids are generally healthier
> smarter and prettier.
Parenthood and other reproductive health organizations, teen mothers are
more likely to have miscarriages or premature births, or, if the child
is carries to term, birth defects and/or low birth weight. They
recommend one not consider having a child till at least age 21 or 23.
Moonwolf
**************************
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to
favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops
without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many
waters." - Frederick Douglass
Kamatu
"barbara turner/ moonwolf" <barbt...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1201-3AE...@storefull-237.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >14 is young but 16 physically is the ideal
> > age to kick a few cubs into the world.
> > Those kids are generally healthier
> > smarter and prettier.
> Well, maybe where you live. :) In the USA, according to Planned
> Parenthood and other reproductive health organizations, teen mothers are
> more likely to have miscarriages or premature births, or, if the child
> is carries to term, birth defects and/or low birth weight. They
> recommend one not consider having a child till at least age 21 or 23.
> Moonwolf
You have to remember, Moonchild is in the Netherlands, where they get their
16 year olds so stoned they have no choice but to spread their legs and
"spit out a few cubs", the fathers never hold steady jobs and there are no
enforcable child support statutes.
Lina Inverse
It also isn't like smoking three joints a day laced with tobacco is good
for the child to begin with. It also isn't like willow/moonchild has
posted anything resembling a fact.
--
Safari D.
"The dragon race loves to resort to violence"
Xellos
barbara turner/ moonwolf
> olds get kids and let the 50 year olds
> raise them. You're risen by grandma
> and grandpa, the parents are present as
> half kids half workers and help raising
> the kids, becoming ready to raise their
> grandchildren.
Let me bring up a point from experience. I had my first child when I
was 20; my second at age 31. Young children require one to have a LOT
of energy to keep up with them, not to mention with household life in
addition. At age 31, I felt a /definite/ difference in my energy levels
in dealing with the kids - I had not near as much as I did with the
first child. So by extrapolation, there is no way on this green earth
that I would want to raise a child at age 50+!! And the experienced
parents I have spoken with about this heartily agree with me.
The aging Moonwolf
Silver Waer
"Princess Safari" <princes...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> Wonderer is still here? I hadn't noticed with all the much more
interesting
> and well thought out posts from others. Maybe I'll have time for one of my
> newest stalkers next week.
>
SW
Silver Waer
"Lina Inverse" <mak...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:3AE12F67...@bestweb.net...
smudged ,dear :o)
SW
Silver Waer
> >The solution is simple, let the 16 year
> > olds get kids and let the 50 year olds
> > raise them. You're risen by grandma
> > and grandpa, the parents are present as
> > half kids half workers and help raising
> > the kids, becoming ready to raise their
> > grandchildren.
>
> Let me bring up a point from experience. I had my first child when I
> was 20; my second at age 31. Young children require one to have a LOT
> of energy to keep up with them, not to mention with household life in
> addition. At age 31, I felt a /definite/ difference in my energy levels
> in dealing with the kids - I had not near as much as I did with the
> first child. So by extrapolation, there is no way on this green earth
> that I would want to raise a child at age 50+!! And the experienced
> parents I have spoken with about this heartily agree with me.
Yeah, my sister is going to have her hands full.She had her last one at
40.Her hubby is nearing 60. Not a good idea.
SW
> The aging Moonwolf
*slurp*g*
Silver Waer
"Kamatu" <nq...@nujj.arg> wrote in message
news:9bq9m...@news2.newsguy.com...
SW
Kamatu
How was your time in prison?
"Silver Waer" <fo...@yuorass.org> wrote in message
news:UxDE6.172599$lj4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
Lina Inverse
Kamatu wrote:
>
> Whatsa matter Zen, furries didn't want you either?
> How was your time in prison?
I told you to let him go. I wanted him to have a real good chance to get
rejected by the furries on his own. God he is such a fucking loser :) Of
course, I was expecting it a bit more into may, but it explains 44 posts
on a sunday.
--
Silver Waer
"Kamatu" <nq...@nujj.arg> wrote in message
> Whatsa matter Zen, furries didn't want you either?
> How was your time in prison?
>
And to tell you that that thing you do with yer tounge....yer the man...er
wife in this case....
SW
Silver Waer
>
>
> Kamatu wrote:
> >
> > Whatsa matter Zen, furries didn't want you either?
> > How was your time in prison?
>
> I told you to let him go. I wanted him to have a real good chance to get
> rejected by the furries on his own. God he is such a fucking loser :) Of
> course, I was expecting it a bit more into may, but it explains 44 posts
> on a sunday.
>
proves _you_ have no life.LOL!
SW
Cypherwulf
>
> "Lina Inverse" <mak...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE325F4...@bestweb.net...
> >
> >
> > Kamatu wrote:
> > >
> > > Whatsa matter Zen, furries didn't want you either?
> > > How was your time in prison?
> >
> > I told you to let him go. I wanted him to have a real good chance to get
> > rejected by the furries on his own. God he is such a fucking loser :) Of
> > course, I was expecting it a bit more into may, but it explains 44 posts
> > on a sunday.
> >
> Yer one obsessive little twit ,arnt cha? Counting psots...well, I guess
that
> proves _you_ have no life.LOL!
And you do? :)
--
, , Hisses and howls,
,0 0, Cypherwulf
0(_)0
, ,
,0 0, boo...@starpower.net
0| |0 http://www.angelfire.com/md2/lycanthropia/index.html
|___| "War was beginning .
\ / What happen ?
0 Somebody set up us the bomb !"
' -Zero Wing
Lina Inverse
Cypherwulf wrote:
>
> "Silver Waer" <fo...@yuorass.org> wrote in message
> news:cw2F6.177182$lj4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
> >
> > "Lina Inverse" <mak...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AE325F4...@bestweb.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Kamatu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whatsa matter Zen, furries didn't want you either?
> > > > How was your time in prison?
> > >
> > > I told you to let him go. I wanted him to have a real good chance to get
> > > rejected by the furries on his own. God he is such a fucking loser :) Of
> > > course, I was expecting it a bit more into may, but it explains 44 posts
> > > on a sunday.
> > >
> > Yer one obsessive little twit ,arnt cha? Counting psots...well, I guess
> that
> > proves _you_ have no life.LOL!
>
> And you do? :)
Pathetically begs for friends in the were, furry and meower comunities?
Repeatedly forgets his meds? Mails bombs to people's houses? Gets
laughed at by all of usenet? Is still searching for his first friend?
cries and thinks about suicide a lot?
Do you really want a list?